Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

24/2012

L.Sridhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank & Other - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Ratio Legis

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   12.01.2012

                                                                        Date of Order :   20.11.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.24/2012

             FRIDAY THIS  20^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER  2015     

 

L. Sridhar,

S/o. V.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan,

A-1, Subiksha Flats,

No.1, Babu Rajendra Prasad 1^st Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai                                                                ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

1.  The Senior Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Rangarajapuram Branch,

21A Thambiah Road Extn.,

West Mambalam,

Chennai 600 033.

 

2. The Chairman and Managing Director,

Indian Overseas Bank,

763 Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                              ..Opposite parties.  

 

 

For the Complainant                 :   M/s. Ratio Legis   

 

For the Opposite parties            :    M/s. P.A.Daivasigamani & Associates

                                                    & others

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for  deficiency of service and horrendous impressions  to the complainant.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

           The complainant is holding a savings bank account in the opposite parties’ bank at Anna Nagar branch.   The Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are also proved the same.   There were Matrimony case pending against himself and his wife in XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and I Additional Family Court and he was asked and surprised to get a copy of his savings account statement in printed form served by XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet on 20.7.2010.    In the domestic violation case filed by his wife M/s. Geetha Sridhar.  As such the complainant has raised grievance against the opposite parties that as per banking rules the 1^st opposite party bank is not supposed divulge any information pertaining to his customers transactions to the 3^rd parties including parents children relatives at any 3^rd parties without customers written instructions.   Contrary to the said rules the 1^st opposite party has issued the copy of his saving bank account statement which enable his wife filed it in XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court which is highly violation of rules which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and claims compensation and litigation charges.  As such the complainant has sought for  a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and horrendous impressions  to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.           

Written version of   opposite party is  as follows:-

2.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties are not aware about the cases pending between the complainant and his wife in XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court and family court.  The complainant as a matter of practice and as per the impleaded authorities the complainant’s father V.R. Lakshmi Narasimhan used to get miscellaneous banking services such as collecting statement of account, cheque book, etc. as is eligible for the above account.  The allegation made by the complainant that the statement of account was handed over to a third party is not correct.  It is to be mentioned here that the statement was handed over to his father, the said Shri.V.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan only.  The Branch had earlier sent a reply notice to the complainant’s advocate stating the above fact but the name was erroneously mentioned as Shri Lakshmi Narayanan on request on behalf of the complainant.   As such the handing over of statement of account to complainant’s father cannot be taken as third party intervention and the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite parties have not filed their proof affidavit and no document was filed on the side of the opposite parties. 

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

5.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

Perused the complaint  filed by the complainant, written version filed by the  opposite parties, proof affidavit filed by the complainant  and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A5  filed on the side of the complainant  and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     There is no dispute that the complainant is holding a savings bank account in the opposite parties’ bank at Anna Nagar branch.   The Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are also proved the same.   The complainant main grievance in the complaint is that there were Matrimony case pending against himself and his wife in XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and I Additional Family Court and he was asked and surprised to get a copy of his savings account statement in printed form served by XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet on 20.7.2010.    In the domestic violation case filed by his wife M/s. Geetha Sridhar.  As such the complainant has raised grievance against the opposite parties that as per banking rules the 1^st opposite party bank is not supposed divulge any information pertaining to his customers transactions to the 3^rd parties including parents children relatives at any 3^rd parties without customers written instructions.   Contrary to the said rules the 1^st opposite party has issued the copy of his saving bank account statement which enable his wife filed it in XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court which is highly violation of rules which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and claims compensation and litigation charges.

7.     Whereas the opposite parties has filed written version as well as in the proof affidavit stating that they are not aware about the cases pending between the complainant and his wife in XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court and family court.   As a matter of practice and as per the implied authority the complainant’s father V.R. Lakshmi Narasimhan used to get miscellaneous banking services such as collecting statement of account, cheque book, etc. as is eligible for the above account.  The allegation made by the complainant that the statement of account was handed over to a third party is not correct.  It is to be mentioned here that the statement was handed over to his father, the said Shri.V.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan only.  The Branch had earlier sent a reply notice to the complainant’s advocate stating the above fact but the name was erroneously mentioned as Shri Lakshmi Narayanan.  The statement of accokunt was handed over to him, on request on behalf of the complainant.   As such the handing over of statement of account to complainant’s father cannot be taken as third party intervention and the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

8.     The complainant has not produced any evidence apart from his averment for pending matrimony case between the complainant and his wife before  XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.  The statement of account filed as Ex.A7 on the side of complainant is also having any iota of evidence that the said statement of account was received by the complainant from the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet in pending case between himself and his wife.   As contended by the opposite parties the reply notice given by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant Ex.A5 it is mentioned that the father name of the complainant as Lakshmi Narayanan instead of Lakshmi Narasimhan which is mentioned mistakenly in the said notice was admitted by the opposite parties in their written version as well as in the proof affidavit.   In this respect the complainant has not raised any specific objection in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant.   Further the opposite parties contention that they are not revealed or issued any copy of the statement of account of the complainant to 3^rd parties but they have not given copy of the statement of account on the request of his father Lakshmi Narayan on behalf of the complainant only that to as a matter of practice has impleaded authority that the complainant father used to get miscellaneous banking services that has collected cheque on behalf of the complainant.   This particular contention raised by the opposite parties was neither denied are not objected by the complainant in his affidavit.  Though as stated by the complainant as per rules and regulations of the bank the accounts particulars of the customers of the bank should not be revealed to the third party is acceptable and not even denied by the opposite parties in his case.  The contention of the opposite parties that statement of complainant saving bank account was given only to the father of the complainant that too on the basis that he was looking after the miscellaneous banking services as such collecting statement of account, cheque book, etc. for the complainant and his wife which cannot be considered to be violation of rules and regulations is acceptable.   since, such practice has not been denied by the complainant specifically in this case.   Moreover the complainant has not proved the allegation that the opposite parties have handed over the statement of accounts of the complainant to third party which enabled his wife to file it in the matrimony case pending before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and the complainant was served such copies by the said court.   Therefore we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to  prove the complaint mentioned allegation attributed against the opposite parties,  as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint  against opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances parties have to bear their own cost of litigation and as such the points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs.  

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 20^th   day of November   2015.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1-         -       - Copy of Pass Book front pages.

Ex.A2-         -      - Copy of account statement.

Ex.A3- 23.11.2010         - Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A4- 2.12.2010  - Copy of interim reply by the bank.

Ex.A5- 18.4.2011  - Copy of Reply from the opposite parties.

Opposite parties’ side  documents:

.. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.