Delhi

StateCommission

CC/299/2016

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                                                                         Date of Decision : 22.04.2016

                   Date of arguments heard : 21.04.2016

Complaint Case No.299/2016

 

Ashok Kumar Goel

S/o Sh. P.C. Goel

R/o 1^st Floor, 110-A/4 Krishna Nagar,

Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi-110029

 

……Complainant

Vs.

 

The Branch Manager

ICICI Bank

A-1/15 Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi-110029

…Opposite party

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

 

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

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The facts relevant at present stage of admission of complaint and as alleged are that OP bank persuaded the complainant for transaction through its representative Sh. Karnabatula sudhakar Rao (in short ‘Sudhakar,)  on the pretext of selling gold in 2012 who sought Bank Account numbers and cheque numbers of complainant for blocking money in the accounts for sale of gold by OP bank unauthorisedly  withdrew money from the account of wife of complainant, Ms. Renu Goel. Cheating was done through  officer Sh. Kasupati Harshvardhan. Cheating wad detected by OP on 12.8.13 and reported to RBI on 2.9.13. FIR No. 35/14 was registered by Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad. OP should have restored the said money to the account of wife of the complainant. Sudhakar borrowed Rs.3,58,000/- from the complainant and Rs.5,40,000/- from the son of the complainant namely Sh. Amit Goel. Sudhakar intimated on 6.12.12 that he had returned both the loans by depositing a cheque of Andhra Bank in the account of complainant and in the account of Sh. Amit Goel, son of the complainant. Sudhakar handed over fake fabricated cheque deposit receipts of ICICI bank which was fabricated by him in connivance with ICICI bank. Sudhakar gave cheque of his own account in ICICI bank for returning the loan which was bounced back due to insufficient fund. Same thing happened to the cheque given for retuning loan of son of the complainant
2.         ICICI bank withdrew money from the account of son of the complainant for presenting of cheques and handed over gold against said unauthorisedly withdrawn money to Sudhakar against forged documents. The same was reported to ICICI bank on 12.4.13. Sudhakar returned the loan on 26.4.13 and OP bank issued bank account statement of complainant unauthorisedly to Sudhakar. Same thing happened with the son of the complainant. OP unauthorisedly manipulated account of complainant into a joint account with his wife Ms. Renu Goel without any application under conspiracy to cheat the complainant. On 5.10.13 the OP bank restored money stolen on 10.11.12 from the account of the wife of the complainant alongwith interest on the orders of the Banking Ombudsman. Sudhakar alleged the return of loan to be extortion.
3.         Sudhakar filed the complaint against son of the complainant and wife of the complainant which led to registration of FIR No. 377/14 in Madhapur Police Station, Hyderabad.
4.         OP bank gave unauthorized details of bank account of complainant which enabled Sudhakar to register FIR No.494/14. The complainant had to seek anticipatary bail and file a petition for quashing of FIR. Hence this complaint for restraining OP from disclosing information from bank account of complainant to unauthorized person, restrain OP bank from issuing bank account statement of complainant to unauthorised person, direct the OP bank to delete name of wife  of the complainant from S/B Account of the complainant, restrain OP bank from manipulating the account of complainant, direct OP to pay exemplary compensation of Rs.95,00,000/- to complainant, Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs of litigation, direct OP bank to initiate again against Sudhakar and Kasupati Harshvardhan for misleading information of account of complainant provided by OP bank, Punish and penalize OP bank to ensure that OP does not repeat such unfair trade practice.
5.         We have gone through the complaint and heard the complainant in person for the purpose of admission. The complainant has mentioned in the opening para of the complaint that he was filing the present complaint as per observation of National Commission i.e.  in order dated 21.1.16 passed in CC No.1520/15. We have gone through the said order. That order in a way strikes at the root of the complainant, instead of helping him. It is true that there the complainant was seeking compensation of Rs.15 crore which was found to be exaggerated. Now he is seeking compensation of Rs.95,00,000/- but the same is again exaggerated . The complainant himself has mentioned that he is seeking exemplary compensation. Use of word ‘exemplary’ itself shows that complainant is claiming much much more than he suffered.
6.         It has been observed by the National Commission in its order that complaint was based on factual allegations constituting criminal offence and bank statement of complainant was only one document filed by Sudhakar in support of his complaint. The same was not the sole base of the complaint by Sudhakar Rao. It could not be said that had the bank not supplied the statement to Sudhakar, he would not have filed the criminal complaint against complainant and his family members. Nothing prevented Sudhakar from summoning the bank statement of the complainant through process of court since such statement was not a privileged document disclosure of which could be withheld from criminal court. Thus it was difficult to say that the complainant was entitled to substantive amount as damages from OP on account of alleged supply of bank statement to Sudhakar and Harshvardhan.
7.         We feel that present complaint is a counter plast to the FIR registered by Sudhakar against complainant and his family members. Moreover, the complaint contains the allegations of fraud, forgery which cannot be gone into summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. The same require detailed evidence and the complainant should seek the same by filing a Civil suit by recovery of damages.
8.         The complaint seems to be abuse of benevolent provision of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint  is dismissed in limine.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
10. File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)

ak