Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-95/2020
Aayush Gupta s/o Pankaj Gupta
r/o H.No. 3157, Mohalla Dassan,
Cherkha Wallan, Haus Quzi
Delhi-110006 ...Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager,
ICICI Bank Chawri Bazar,
Delhi-110006 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 03.11.2020
Order Reserved on: 23.01.2023
Date of Order: 07.03.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Inder Jeet Singh
ORDER
1. The complainant makes allegations of negligence, misconduct, unfair trade practice and of deficiency in service against the OP that complainant’s saving bank account statement was leaked to some unauthorized person without permission and consent of the complainant which he came to know on 2.9.2020, which caused mental and physical harassment. The complainant makes claims damages of Rs. 9,50,000/- with interest against the OP. Whereas, OP opposes the complaint on all counts, there was no negligence, misconduct, unfair trade practice and of deficiency in service, nor the copy of statement was given to any unauthorized person vis-à-vis the complaint is outcome connivance between the complainant and other person.
2.1. The facts in complaint are that complainant maintains saving account no. 113201001101 with the OP having its Branch at Chawri Bazar Delhi. On 02.09.2020, it came to the knowledge of complainant that his bank account statement, from the beginning till last transaction in the account, was leaked either from the Branch of OP or from the other branch of Bank. The complainant never applied for account statement nor any charges were deducted for account statement, the leakage of account statement to third party, without permission from the complainant, is against high confidence as well as the complainant faced hardship and harassment by the Bank. There is negligence, lack of supervision, apart from unfair practice, deficiency in service for which complainant suffered a lot physically, mentally and high confidentiality of his account; The complainant suffered loss on account of OP without any reasonable cause, the complainant claims Rs. 9,50,000/- as compensation/damages, while relying upon case of Amit Mittal v/s Hemant Kumar, Branch Manager, City Bank (decided by Hon’ble National Commission confirming the order of Hon’ble State Commission). The complainant served legal notice upon the OP, but it failed to make any payment however, a telephone call was received by the complainant from the Branch Manager, while admitting the wrong acts committed by bank officials but they are unable to pay compensation. That is why, the complaint for damages of Rs. 9,50,000/- on account of mentally and physical harassments. The complaint is accompanied with hard copy of statement of account and copies of legal notice dated 15.09.2020 with courier DTDC receipt.
2.2.1. On the other side, OP opposes the complaint vehemently on various grounds, inter alia, the complainant failed to disclose, who is unauthorized person whom OP had given the bank account statement of complainant, the complainant also failed to disclose as to how he came to know about the account statement having being issued by OP and how he got accessed to that bank account statement from such unauthorized person. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of the parties. There is a collusion between the complainant and other alleged unknown person in order to cheat and deceive the OP. The case needs detailed evidence to elicit the truth, thus the complainant may be directed to approach civil court. The complaint is also barred by limitation period.
2.2.2 The OP further narrates, that the complainant has saving bank account no. 113201001101, it was opened in April, 2019 by deposit of cheque of Rs. 20,000/- which was issued by complainant’s mother Smt. Sheetal Gupta, who is also having joint account and fixed deposits with the OP/Bank Branch. Smt. Sheetal Gupta manages complainant’s account, the registered mobile phone and email ID mentioned in the account of complainant is of Smt. Sheetal Gupta only. She is regular visitor to the OP/Bank branch for banking service of her own account as well as of account of her son/complainant, there are confident relations with the bank officials of trust and faith.
2.2.3. It was 03.07.2020 when Smt. Sheetal Gupta visited the OP branch to have fixed deposit receipt prepared under her own account, she had requested for accounts statement of complainant also, she was asked for signed letter from the complainant but she assured to submit the same once complainant is available. The Bank officials in order to seek confirmation by complainant, rang registered mobile number mentioned in the account and mobile handset was being carry by Smt. Sheetal Gupta at that moment and after this confirmation, the statement of account was given to complainant’s mother, who was managing the account of her son, aged about 20 year and was also holding registered mobile number under that account. The presence of complainant’s mother on 03.07.2022 can be confirmed from the record of fixed deposit as well as the detail of other joint account, besides voucher record etc. subject to direction of Hon’ble Commission. The circumstances seems to show the intention of the complainant is to extort wrongful gain at the cost and expenses of OP by making baseless allegations.
2.2.4. Moreover, the complainant is not sure of the facts, whether it was branch of OP or another branch for alleged leakage of bank statement. There is lack of clarity whether the complaint is against individual capacity of Branch Manager, as impleaded or ICICI Bank.
The OP denies other allegations of the complaint specifically, particularly the case Amit Mittal vs Hemant Kumar is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case there was issue of credit card statement misused by OP therein. But in present case the complainant has not given source of coming to know about unauthorized who accessed to his bank account.
Whereas in another case of Manoj Singhal vs ICICI Bank Ltd. CC no. 192/2018, the Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the complaint under same circumstances. There is no deficiency of service, unfair practice, negligence, misconduct or lack of supervision by OP. The complainant could not substantiate the allegations of harassment or of damages. In Ashok Kumar Goel vs Branch Manager, ICICI Bank CC no. 1520/2015, it was held that alleged unauthorized copy supplied of the bank statement cannot possibly result in award of huge damages and also it is necessary to curb such tendencies. The complaint deserves dismissal.
2.3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP, while reaffirming the contents of complaint. The complainant further explains that the case of complainant is not of leakage of bank account statement to his mother. It is leakage of bank statement to others. Moreover, the complainant had not mentioned the any date of leak of his statement of account either in the complaint or in the legal notice dated, being not known, however, after reply by OP the complainant alleges that statement of account leakage on 07.03.2020 (paragraph 1 of rejoinder being reply to preliminary submission) and not on 03.07.2020 as pleaded by OP nor it is pertaining to the visit of complainant’s mother to the bank premises on 03.07.2020. It is relevant to mention that in the legal notice dated 15.09.2020 complainant alleges that he came to know on 10.09.2020, whereas in the complaint date mentioned is 02.09.2020.
3. The parties were given opportunity to lead evidence. Complainant Ayush Gupta lead evidence by filing his detailed affidavit, supplementing with the documentary record filed with the complaint viz. copy of account statement, legal notice and proof of delivery of such notice.
On the other side, OP filed the affidavit of Shri Sanjay Sharma, Manager Legal, ICICI Bank, author of reply to complaint, to establish its case, this evidence is replica of the reply filed. Affidavit of evidence is supported with Board resolution in favour of Shri Sanjay Sharma.
4. Both the parties filed their written arguments. Shri Rajesh Kaushik, Advocate for complainant and Shri Manish Chaudhary Advocate for OP also made oral submission. Since the case of parties have already been referred in detail in paragraph no. 2 above and gist of dispute has also been introduced in paragraph no. 1 above, thus it does not need to reproduce the contentions as their respective contention will be discussed appropriately.
5.1. (Findings): The contentions of both the sides are considered & assessed, keeping in view the documentary record and other circumstances explained.
Firstly, the OP raised the issue of limitation that complaint is beyond statutory period but it could not be elucidated, how it is barred by time. The period of limitation is two years for filing the complaint from the date of cause of action first risen. The complaint was filed on 03.11.2020 and complainant asserts that he came to know about said statement of account on 02.09.2020, therefore, the complaint is within limitation as period of limitation will be computed from the time when right accrues to file complaint and it could be when complaint learned about.
The second issue is raised by OP to direct the parties to the civil court as it involves detail evidence/cross examination of parties/witness but complainant's is contention is that there is no complicated question is involved to be tried by civil court. By considering the record and rival pleas of parties, this case is based on documentary record as well as other surrounding circumstance, therefore, it does not need any direction to refer the parties to the civil court for determination of dispute. Since, the matter pertains to banking relation between a Banker and its customer, it can be dealt by the present Commission. This Commission has jurisdiction on the subject matter. This issue/objection is also disposed off.
The third issue is an objection by OP of mis-joinder of parties, however, in the body of complaint the allegations are of negligence, want of supervision and deficiency of service by Branch, or may be other branch. Since account of complainant is in the OP-Branch, thus the complaint does not suffer from mis-joinder of OP. This issue also stand disposed off. Now the other issues are taken.
5.2. On the basis of material on record, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i). The complaint does not specify in complaint the actual date of leakage of statement of account but complainant alleges that it was 02.09.2020, when it came to his knowledge, leaked information was either from this Branch of OP or from some other branch. The complainant also alleges that statement was leaked to some unauthorized person, whereas the name of such person was not disclosed throughout on the plea that it is not warranted.
Whereas, the OP explains that it was 03.07.2020, when the complainant’s mother Smt. Sheetal Gupta had visited the OP/Branch for getting prepared her FDR as she is maintaining joint account with her son/complainant as well as the complainant is having a separate bank account. The statement of account of complainant was given to her on her specific request on behalf of complainant, since registered mobile phone of customer was confirmed, she was carrying mobile hand set at that time, when it was confirmed and then statement of account was given; apart from she was also managing the bank services for her son by her usual frequent visits to the bank.
However, in order to counter the plea of date of 03.07.2020 of OP, the complainant explains in his replication as well as in evidence that the date of leakage is 07.03.2020 (sic. year 2021 is mentioned in place of year 2020 in the paragraph no. 10 of affidavit of evidence), which is the date of statement released and consequently the plea of OP does not sustain. The complainant counters OP's stand by stating that the statement of account leaked is pertaining to complainant’s account, thus there is no relevancy to refer the joint account of complainant & his mother as well as visit of complainant’s mother in the branch of OP.
What is factual situation then? The record is perused. Precisely, its answer is in one of the relevant documents and now it is to be referred and discussed, which will dispel all shadow perceived by the parties and it will make crystal clear the situation. It is 'statement of account' itself, which is filed by the complainant and not disputed by the OP. This statement of account is computer-generated two sheets, it is at page no. 9 and 10 of the paper-book of complainant and at its bottom at right side, the period mention is ‘7/3/2020’ on each sheet.
During oral submission also, there is dispute between the parties as how this period ' 7/3/2020' will be read. According to complainant it is 7th of March 2020 [i.e. firstly date 7th is mentioned, secondly it is month March and thirdly it is year 2020] but according to OP it is of July 3rd, 2020 [i.e. firstly Month July is mentioned, secondly it is date 3rd and thirdly it is year 2020].
In the same statement of account, other details of account holder and account is also given at the top. It is specifically mentioned in that detail at the top ‘account Status date-23.04.2020’. It means the in that statement there is reference of 'status of account on 23.04.2020'. Moreover, in the contents of statement of account, the entry of 23.04.2020 is 'interest on FD/RCxxx0585 TDS-0. One entry is of 1.5.2020 CLC Aayush Gupta ug Sheetal. To say there are many entries in the statement of account subsequent to 23.04.2020, which are upto 29.06.2020.
In case statement of account is generated on 7th March 2020, the statement of account cannot contain entries of subsequent period from 8th March 2020 onwards. Whereas statement of account in question contain entries for month of subsequent to March 2020. Thus, there is no possibility to construe that date written is of 7th March 2020, in the computer generated statement of account, since it bears specific status of account on 23.04.2020 as well as entries for subsequent months. Otherwise, it would mean that on 7th March 2020, the status of account of future date 23.04.2020 or subsequent months are given, which is not possible. However, the status of account of previous dates can certainly be given as it would be matter of past transaction/record. To say, on 7th March, 2020 the status of previous record can be given but not of future dates. Similarly, on 3rd July 2020, the status of previous record from that date may be furnished.
In other words, expression '7/3/2020 is actually for date 3rd July 2020, mentioned at bottom of statement of account being hard. In this way, the plea of complainant also does not sustain that date was 7th March 2020 [as claimed first time in replication, that date is 7th of March 2020], when the so-called information was leaked. In fact, after OP's mentioning of date of 3rd July 2020 and other facts of visit of mother of complainant, the onus was on the complainant to rebut it by concrete & convincing evidence, but complainant could not rebut it on the basis of his own record of statement of account [which shows and confirms account status on 23.04.2020 as well as entries in the statement of account of subsequent months too]. It was not possible and feasible on 7th March 2020 to tell the status of account of 23.4.2020 & entries of subsequent months.
(ii). Moreover, the complainant's initial case is that he came to know about leak of his statement of account on 02.09.2020 and he was not knowing earlier, then on what basis he claimed the date of 7th March, 2020. He is claiming on the basis of period mentioned at bottom of statement as '7/3/2020'. However, it has not been established by the complainant.
(iii) The complainant had not disclosed the name of person from whom the statement of account was made available to him or how he accessed the statement of account. However, the OP clearly named and demonstrated that complainant’s mother visited the bank on 3rd July 2020 for banking service and obtained the fixed deposit receipt, when she had also requested for statement of account of the complainant, since she had ID and mobile handset of registered contact number for that account of complainant, which was also confirmed by officials of OP. The complainant could not rebut this piece of evidence but just asserted that it has no link with the joint account of complainant and his mother. In fact, the onus came on the complainant to establish and prove the name of that person, if it was other than his mother, since the OP has specifically mentioned the name of complainant’s mother, whom the statement of account was provided. The OP is being supported by the circumstances that complainant's mother came to Bank for operation of joint account too on that day of 3rd July 2020. OP is not claiming that statement of account was pertaining to that joint account.
(iv). The complainant could not prove that statement of account of complainant was provided to some third person or unauthorized person, since OP has proved that it was provided to complainant’s mother Smt. Sheetal Gupta, who is frequently managing the account of complainant by visiting the bank. Name of complainant's mother is also appearing in statement of account of entry of 23.04.2020. In this situation Smt. Sheetal Gupta cannot be construed stranger or unauthorized person or third person. The case law of Hemant Kumar case is distinguishable from the feature of this case.
(v). It appears that OP had accommodated request of the complainant’s mother on behalf of complaint within the purview of good customer-services but the same is being construed, otherwise by the complainant.
(vi). In view of the conclusion draw in paragraph (i) to (iv), it is held that complainant could not establish the case of deficiency in services or negligence against the OP. The complaint fails.
6. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed. Both the parties will bear their own costs.
7. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
8: Announced on this 7th March, 2023 [फागुन 16, साका 1944].
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
