Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/337/2015

Branch Manager, HDFC Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepak Garg - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Narang, Adv.

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	337 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	15.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	09.02.2016

 

1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch-NAC Manimajra.
2. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch-Gujranwala, Ring Road, New Delhi.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Deepak Garg son of Sh.Jaswant Rai Garg, resident of House No.D-58, Panchsheel Enclave, Bishanpura, Zirakpur.

              ....Respondent/Complainant.

Argued by: Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate for the appellants.

                             Ms.Payel Mehta, Advocate for the respondent.

 

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                    

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in First Appeal bearing no.09 of 2016, titled as Deepak Garg Vs Branch Manager, HDFC Bank and another, this appeal has also been dismissed, with no order as to costs. 

2.        Certified copy of the order passed in First Appeal bearing no.09 of 2016,, shall also be placed on this file.
3.        Certified copies of the main order, alongwith this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

 

Sd/-       Sd/-                                         Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	09 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	07.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	09.02.2016

 

Deepak Garg son of Sh.Jaswant Rai Garg, resident of House No.D-58, Panchsheel Enclave, Bishanpura, Zirakpur.

……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch-NAC Manimajra.
2. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch-Gujranwala, Ring Road, New Delhi.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Argued by:       Ms.Payel Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate for the respondents.

 

=======================================================

First Appeal No.	:	337 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	15.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	09.02.2016

 

1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch-NAC Manimajra.
2. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch-Gujranwala, Ring Road, New Delhi.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Deepak Garg son of Sh.Jaswant Rai Garg, resident of House No.D-58, Panchsheel Enclave, Bishanpura, Zirakpur.

              ....Respondent/Complainant.

Argued by:       Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate for the appellants.

                        Ms.Payel Mehta, Advocate for the respondent.

 

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.09 of 2016 titled as Deepak Garg Vs. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank and another and 337  of 2015, titled as Branch Manager, HDFC Bank and another Vs. Deepak Garg, arising out of a common order dated 07.10.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which, it accepted a consumer complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant in FA No.09 of 2016 and respondent in FA No.337 of 2015). It was grievance of the complainant that the respondents/opposite parties (in short the Bank) have unauthorizedly handed over his account statement, to his adversary (his wife), in a litigation before the Competent Court, which resulted into causing loss to him. Believing that there was deficiency in providing service, on the part of the Bank, the consumer complaint was partly allowed by the Forum vide order dated 07.10.2015, granting him the following relief:-

“For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed :-

(i)     To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of their official(s).

(ii)    To also make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above”.

2.       By filing appeal bearing No.09 of 2016 titled as Deepak Garg Vs. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank and another, compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs, with interest and litigation expenses, has been claimed, by the complainant/appellant. Whereas, on the other hand, the Bank has also filed an appeal bearing no.337 of 2015, titled as Branch Manager, HDFC Bank and another Vs. Deepak Garg, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.10.2015, passed by the Forum, granting above relief to the complainant.
3.       As per facts on record, the complainant has matrimonial dispute with his wife. He has severed his relationship with her and living separate whereof November 2013. It is asserted by him that in the month of February 2015, he came to know that the Bank had unauthorizedly gave copy of his statement of account, for the period from 01.06.2014 to 07.01.2015, to his wife, and, as such, it had violated  fiscal  relationship, between it (Bank) and him (complainant). The said unauthorized copy of statement of account was used by his wife, against him, in a private dispute, going in a Court at Hansi, causing loss to him. It is further stated by him that despite approaching the Officers concerned of the Bank, he failed to get any satisfactory explanation. As per option given to him, he took up his grievance with Mr. Ajay Vishnoi, Branch Manager of the Bank, who informed him that his statement of account was got punched from Gujranwala Branch, New Delhi i.e. opposite party no.2. When despite requests made, neither action was taken against the erring Official(s) nor an attempt was made to compensate the complainant, he filed consumer complaint bearing no.226 of 2015, before the Forum on 10.04.2015.
4.       Upon notice, reply was filed by the Bank, wherein, the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied. It was specifically stated that the disputed statement of account was not supplied by the bank, to the wife of the complainant, as alleged. It was further stated that the complainant was availing net banking services. He might have taken the said printout of his account statement and to get compensation, the present complaint has been filed. It was further averred that when the complainant was residing with his wife, at the time, he may have shared his user ID or password with her and she might have taken the printout of the disputed statement of account. It was stated that disputed statement of account is in substance different from the one, which is issued/generated by any branch of the Bank. The Bank always guard the privacy and confidentiality of its clients. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6.       After hearing Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, partly accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to above.
7.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant cross appeals have been filed by the parties.
8.       We have heard Counsel for the parties, in both the appeals, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
9.       It is not in dispute that the complainant has his saving bank account with the Bank, at NAC Manimajra Branch. It is also not in dispute that the statement of his bank account was produced by his wife, in a Court at Hansi, which resulted into granting compensation to her @Rs.20,000/- per month, against him. It is also not disputed by the Bank that the details of account of a customer is confidential and cannot be leaked out, to a third party. When granting relief to the complainant, it was noted by the Forum that averment of the Bank that account statement produced in a Court at Hansi, was fabricated, was not proved on record. By placing reliance on correspondence exchanged between the parties, through emails, it was observed that between 07.02.2015 to 05.03.2015, despite requests made by the complainant to the Bank, he was not informed qua action taken by it, in respect of leaking his account statement, to a third party. During this period, several emails were exchanged  between the parties but the complainant was not intimated that his wife might have printed out, the disputed statement of account, on account of user ID and password shared with her, by him, when they were residing together. The Bank in its correspondence done with the complainant stated that the matter was under investigation. However, what action was taken, was never intimated to the complainant. By noting as above, it was held by the Forum that there was deficiency in providing service on the part of the Bank and compensation, to the tune of Rs.1 lac alongwith litigation expenses, were awarded for violation of confidentiality, qua account maintained by the complainant, in the Bank. By placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the State Commission, Delhi, in the case of Sh.Amit Mittal Vs. Mr.Hemant Kumar and another, Consumer Complaint No.2009/144, decided on 10.09.2012, it is vehemently argued by Counsel for the complainant/appellant, in appeal No.09 of 2016, that compensation awarded by the Forum, in the consumer complaint was on the lower side. She argued that on account of presenting the disputed statement of account, unauthorizedly provided to the wife of the complainant, in a Court at Hansi, she (wife) was held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. Prayer was made to enhance the compensation amount, awarded by the Forum, in the consumer complaint, in favour of the complainant.
10.       On the other hand, Counsel for the opposite parties/bank, in First Appeal No.337  of 2015, repudiated all those arguments, which have been noted by the Forum, i.e. the statement of account was not leaked by any of its employees; the said statement of account is different than the one, which is issued by any of the Branch of the Bank, which doesn’t bear branch code, network ID details etc.
11.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, in both the appeals , we are not inclined to grant relief to either of the parties. Qua deficiency on the part of the opposite party/bank, in not attending to the complaints made by the complainant i.e. unauthorized leaking of an account statement, was not attended properly, it may be stated here that except assurances of the Bank that action is being taken, no positive result was ever informed to him (complainant). What type of investigation was conducted; and whether computerized record was checked from all the branches to know, from where, the disputed statement of account had been issued, is not on record. On account of this, no interference can be made in the order under challenge, as far as First Appeal No.337 of 2015 is concerned.
12.       Qua First Appeal bearing No.09 of 2016, filed by the complainant (Sh.Deepak Garg), it is not possible to enhance compensation than the one granted by the Forum i.e. Rs.one lac. It is an admitted fact that marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 18.05.2013. Dispute arose between the complainant and his wife. They failed to live together and she left her matrimonial home, to get a surgery/operation done in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, where she was operated on 24.12.2013 and was discharged on 27.12.2013. Since then, the complainant and his wife are living separate. She filed a complaint before the Competent Court, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She prayed that interim relief of maintenance be granted to her, during pendency of those proceedings. It was noted by the Court in judgment dated 19.02.2015 (Copy is available on record as Annexure A-4 at page 35 of the appeal file) that as per salary certificate produced on record, in the month of Jan 2015, the complainant was earning more than Rs.85,000/- including allowances, at his job place. It was further noted that he had resigned from the said job, in the month of January 2015. It was a positive case of the complainant that on account of tendering his resignation from the service, his earning is very nominal and his liability towards car loan, personal loan, dependent mother and personal expenses are more than the amount earned by him. The said argument of the complainant was rejected by the said Court, by passing an order dated 19.02.2015, by placing reliance on bank account statement, in dispute, and compensation was awarded @Rs.20,000/- per month, to his wife.
13.       The litigant, who is not fair to the opponent, especially his wife, whether he could be granted relief, in the connected proceedings or not, is a question, to be seen in this case. Perusal of the disputed statement of account makes it very clear that during the relevant period i.e. 01.06.2014 to 07.01.2015, huge amount was credited to the account of the complainant. The said amount was received from the sources, other than salary, being drawn by the complainant, which had stopped, when he resigned from service. It is nobody’s case that as per law, wife of the complainant could not have been in a position to summon  his (complainant) details of bank account. If she had not produced it on asking of the Court, in that event, on moving an application, the statement of account would have been summoned by the Competent Court and the complainant would have been in a position only to delay the passing of order qua maintenance. As per law, when an order is passed, compensation is payable, from the date, when the application was moved by the applicant for interim relief, in case, it is allowed. In a way, no loss has been caused to the complainant, by the order dated 19.02.2015, granting maintenance to his wife. The complainant was not fair to the Court, at Hansi. He made an attempt to conceal his income from the Court. He falsely misled the said Court, by filing statement that his income is nominal, whereas, to the contrary, as per disputed statement of account, he was earning handsome amount, from other sources. Conduct of litigant is to be seen by the Court. If there is an attempt to over reach the Court, to such a litigant, no relief cane be granted.

            As such, in the present case, we feel that the amount granted towards compensation by the Forum, to the complainant is sufficient for deficiency in service committed by the Bank. No relief can be given to the complainant, in view of ratio of law laid down in Sh.Amit Mittal's case (supra), reliance whereupon has been placed by him. In that case, argument that on account of act of the complainant therein, in concealing his income, relief be not granted to him, was rejected by stating that circumstances of the case, in which leaked statement of account was produced, was not known to the Court and it was also not known, as to  whether, the complainant therein, was fair in trying to withhold information about his account or not. However, in the present case, the facts are known to the Court. By not disclosing his account statement, an attempt was made by the complainant to deny to his wife, her due. As per law, if wife has no source of income, she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband, during subsistence of the marriage. As per information supplied at the bar, marriage has not yet been dissolved.  

14.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties, in both the appeals.
15.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16.       For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
17.       Certified copy of this order be placed in the file of First Appeal bearing no.337 of 2015, titled as Branch Manager, HDFC Bank and another Vs. Deepak Garg.
18.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

09.02.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

Rg