Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1030/2013

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURPREET KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 16.01.2017

 

First Appeal No. 1030/13

(Arising out of order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in complaint case No. 663/10)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

         

Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. Having its Registered Office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013 And having its Delhi branch Office at RG Complex, Plot No. 4, DDA Community Centre, Sector-IX, Rohini, New Delhi-110085                                                        ……Appellant     Versus     Gurpreet Kaur, C/o Mr. Mahinder Singh, B.M. 132 (West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088                                                          …….Respondent

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.     This appeal is filed by the appellant/OP challenging order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in  Complaint Case No. 663/10 whereby appellant/OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation to respondent/complainant.

2.     Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Gurpreet Kaur, the respondent/complainant is maintaining saving bank account bearing No.00441050105838 which is also her salary account with the appellant/OP since Feb., 2004.  She has given her correspondence address as that of her parents in Shalimar Bagh BM-132 West, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.  Surprisingly on 3.4.2009 she found that the financial statements for the period from 14.2.2004 to 27.5.2008 had been released to her husband who collected the same from Rohini Branch of appellant/OP without her consent and knowledge.  She approached Rohini Branch of appellant/OP bank and met the branch Manager, namely, Taruna Singh on 04.04.2009 who told that as per bank policy there has to be an application on the basis of which her statements were released. Ms. Taruna Singh, told that bank received application for the said statements on 27.05.2008 and sought some more days to trace the application.  The respondent/complainant filed the written complaint on the same day i.e. 4.4.2009 and also sent an e-mail.  The respondent/complainant visited the Manager of the appellant/OP bank many times and requested for the supply of the requisite information i.e.  who moved the application for the supply  of her bank statement.  On 15.4.2009 three employees, namely, Mr. Arurag Gaur, Mr. Sumit Soni and Mr. Sarandeep Singh of the appellant/OP bank visited the residence of her parents and confessed that the statement of accounts were issued from Anurag Gaur ID on 27.5.2008 and that he had been trying to locate the application and the receipt on the basis of which the statements were released. It was alleged that the application as well as receipt were not traceable. The said employees also requested to withdraw the complaint. It was alleged that on 16.04.2009 after many visits  and phone calls, respondent/complainant was informed by the branch Manager that the record is not available as it was an old case. Thereupon, the respondent/complainant served a legal notice and approached Aditya Puri, the Managing Director of the Bank.  The respondent/complainant also moved a petition to the banking Ombudsman and Regional Director of Reserve Bank of India. Getting no relief the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming Rupees eighteen lakh as compensation and Rs.60,000/- as cost of the litigation and also direction to the bank not to issue such financial statement and that bank should tender apology. 

3.     The appellant/OP had filed the reply and denied the entire allegations.  It was alleged that the complaint had been based on mere conjectures and surmises.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP.  However it was admitted by the appellant/OP in the reply that the respondent/complainant was maintaining the saving bank account as mentioned by her in the complaint since Feb., 2004 and the respondent/complainant was given the unique customer ID i.e. 5511795. It was stated that the the details so provided by the appellant/OP to the customer are highly confidential in nature and and cautioned not to reveal the same to any third party to avoid the possibility of misuse. The customers (including the respondent/complainant) were also provided with personal identification Number (i.e. PIN) and Telephone Identification Number (i.e. TIN), the facility which permits the account holder to access and operate their bank accounts online/or on telephone.  The appellant/OP stated that it had received a call from the respondent/complainant on 8.7.2008 wherein after confirmation of the phone bank password/TIN, the request for new cheque book was placed. On the same date, the customer again made a request for bank account statement for the period 1.3.2008 to June, 2008.  The said request was also processed through IVR after confirmation of the aforesaid details and TIN given by the customer.  The desired details were sent to the customer on 9.8.2008 by Swift Courier at the mailing address and duly delivered at customers i.e. Shalimar Bagh address. It was further alleged that the bank had received another request dated 24.8.2008 for statement of account in question which request was also processed through IVR with the help of secret/confidential TIN and after verification, the desired details were sent to the customer on the aforesaid address.  It is admitted that in the month of April 2009, the respondent/complainant had made a complaint to the branch Manager with the allegation that her account statement had been provided to her husband without her consent.  It was also admitted that the Branch Manager replied that as per bank policy there had to be a request application on the basis of which the statements were released.  As query was old in nature, the Bank Manager sought time to trace out and retrieve the request application.  It was also admitted that the respondent/complainant had sent a legal notice. It was stated that respondent/complainant was not entitled for any compensation as was alleged.

4.     Both the parties had filed the evidence by way of affidavits before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 10.3.2013 partly allowed the complaint and issued directions to the appellant/OP to pay Rs.45,000/- as compensation for pain and mental agony and also Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.

5.     Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.7.2013, the appellant/OP preferred this appeal.

6.     Ld. counsel for the appellant has contended that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate that the information was given as per norms of the phone banking facility. It is despite that the request was processed through the Interactive Voice Response IVR and the account details were given only after the confirmation and verification of the Telephone Identification Number and the account statement was sent as per request at the address of respondent/complainant. It is contended that the Ld. District Forum has not considered the complete material on record and has passed an erroneous order.

7.             On the other hand, respondent who has argued in person has contended that the stand taken by the appellant/OP is an afterthought and the statement for the relevant period was not provided as per norms of Phone Banking Facility as is contended. It is submitted that the Ld. District Forum has considered all the material on record and thereafter has passed a detailed order. No case for interference is made out.

8.     We have heard, the Ld Counsel for the appellant/OP and respondent and perused the material on record. 

9.     At the outset it would be relevant to mention here that various facts as alleged by both the parties are admitted by them.  It is an admitted fact that the respondent/complainant made a complaint on 4.4.2009 which has been reproduced by the District Forum at page 8 of the impugned order.  Further e-mail dated 5.4.2009 was sent by the respondent/complainant to Mr. Himanshu Malik, the head of the Bank is also reproduced by the District Forum in the impugned order.  Again the email dated 11.4.2009 was sent by respondent/complainant to Mr. Himanshu Malik and similarly is the email dated 15.4.2009 sent by the father of the respondent/complainant to Mr. Himanshu Malik.  Another email is dated 16.4.2009, which was sent to Ms. Taruna Singh and copy to Mr. Himanshu Malik.  These facts have not been denied by any of the parties.

10.    It would be pertinent to mention that the respondent/complainant is maintaining her corporate banking salary account since February, 2004 with appellant/OP.  The only controversy in this case is as to why the financial statements for the period from Feb., 2004 to May, 2008 were handed over to the husband of the complainant without her consent and wherein it is a sheer deficiency on the part of the appellant/OP.  It has come on record that the financial statements have been released by Rohini Branch of the appellant/OP where the complainant made a written complaint.  Before filing of the complaint case, the appellant/OP stated that the statements of account were released only on the receipt of an application by the bank.  The branch Manager requested for a few days to retrieve the request letter as well as the receipt by which the statements had been released to the husband of the complainant.  The correspondence reproduced by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned order shows that till 25.4.2009 i.e. till the date the appellant/OP had sent its reply to legal notice of respondent/complainant, its stand was that statement of account of respondent/complainant were sent only on receipt of application and against a receipt by the appellant/OP.

11.    The crux of the matter is that according to the appellant/OP it received an application as well as the receipt on the basis of which the financial statements of the respondent/complainant were issued.  The appellant/OP has utterly failed to give the copy of the application as well as the bank receipt to the respondent/complainant when demanded many times by her and request was also sent to the higher authorities.  The appellant/OP bank has taken a blank reply that the matter was old, therefore, such application and the receipt is not available with it. In written statement new stand is taken is that after confirmation of the phone Banking Password/TIN from the respondent/complainant the bank account statements were provided.

12.            Ld. District Forum has rightly noted in the impugned order that such a stand was never taken when parties were corresponding with each other and also in the reply sent by appellant/OP to the legal notice of respondent/complainant. The stand taken is an afterthought. Further, the said request as per stand of appellant/OP is for financial statement for the period 01.03.2008 to 30.06.2008 whereas the controversy is about supply of financial statements to her husband from the period from 14.02.2004 to 27.05.2008.

13.    The relation of the bank and the customer is of the fidelity and therefore, the bank cannot supply financial statement or any information relating to the bank to another person except that of the court order.  In this connection the Reserve Bank has issued the various guidelines that bank cannot issue any financial statement to third person unless and until the application is moved by the account holder.  Under the bank rules also no information relating to the saving bank account or another account can be supplied to anyone except that of the order of the court.  In the case in hand, the information relating to the financial status of the complainant was given to her husband with whom she is having matrimonial dispute and litigation is also going on between them. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the only conclusion drawn is that the statements were provided to the husband of respondent/complainant with the connivance of the bank officials. The same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP as has been held by Ld. District Forum.  So far as the award of the compensation is concerned, the respondent/complainant demanded Rupees eighteen lakhs whereupon the District Forum has awarded only Rupees forty five thousand which cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination.  Financial statements have been provided to the husband of the respondent/complainant, who is having strained relationship with her and ultimately she had to undergo mental agony pain and sheer suffering.  The District Forum also awarded Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, which is best and proper in the circumstances of the case.

14.    In view of the above do not found any merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.

        A copy of this order be sent to parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of the Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member