Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/93/2024

Pardeep Kumar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Gupta

06 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/93/2024
Date of Institution	:	14/02/2024
Date of Decision	:	06/05/2024

 

Pardeep Kumar Jain S/o Sh.Ram Richhpal Jain R/o Flat No.603, GHS-69, Sector 20, Panchkula.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. HDFC Bank Regional Corporate Office, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Regional/Circle Head.
2. HDFC Bank (Branch), SCF-17, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for Complainants.
	:	Sh.A.P.S.Sehgal, Advocate for OPs.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had opened a savings bank account with the OP No.2 bank on 10.08.2011 and the same is still active. It is stated that earlier this was salary account of the complainant. It is submitted that the statement of account of complainant so procured by someone from the OP Bank for the period from 1.1.2018 to 27.5.2019, was produced in Court as evidence due to which heavy loss has been caused to the complainant and his family. Copy of the bank statement is annexed as Annexure C-1. The complainant submitted a written complaint regarding the same to the OP-bank through email on 24.9.2019 (Annexure C-2 & C-3). When no action was taken by the OP-bank, then complainant again sent a detailed reminder on 3.11.2019 giving reference to the RBI’s guidelines in regard to the access of customer information by the staff of the service provider (Annexure C-6). Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainants filed the instant consumer complaint.  
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the statement of account attached by the complainant is not provided by the answering OP bank or any of its branch since the same is not stamped or signed by the bank or identified as provided under the provisions of the banker’s evidence Act. The source of the above statement is not from the branch or bank by physical presence since not signed or stamped. The same can be downloaded by the complainant or any person who has the internet banking login details of the account of complainant. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs, hence, opportunity to file rejoinder was closed vide order dated 23.04.2024.
4.     Complainants led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that OP’s Bank have issued the account statement of an account held by complainant to a third-party without authorization letter of the complainant.
7.     On perusal of the documents on record i.e., Annexure C-8 which contains directions of the Banking Ombudsman of the RBI, it is observed that OP-bank have not shared information with the complainant about mandate letter issued by the complainant and the details of the officer who shared the statement of account of the complainant inspite of the repeated correspondence.
8.     The guidelines issued by the RBI clearly prescribed that no information of any account can be supplied to a third-party and we are of the view that OP’s bank has been extremely negligent in protecting the information in regard to saving bank account of the complainant, which have caused lot of mental agony & harassment to the complainant.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay in lumpsum an amount of ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days 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 this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
06/05/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member