This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Birpal against the order dated 20.7.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.164 of 2014.

2.      The complainant was an account holder in the Oriental Bank of Commerce. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant was plying vehicle on 50:50 basis of profit sharing with an employee of the Oriental Bank of Commerce. In an accident, the complainant lost his mental balance and after this incident, the bank misguided him and did not provide his bank account details.  Complainant alleged that the bank had embezzled huge amount from the complainant’s bank account by changing account number.  The complainant has doubt that prior to the accident, his account number was 1179 that has now been allegedly changed to 17180.  In spite of lot of efforts, he was not given any information about the account number 1179.  When he sought information under RTI, he was informed by the bank that the said account number does not exist.  According to the complainant, this act of the bank comes under violation of banking law.   The opposite party in their reply stated that opposite party No.1 was never the owner of the said vehicle and he also did not have any partnership with the complainant.  The Complainant has filed a consumer complaint bearing No.324 of 2013 due to his lost mental balance and it is liable  to be dismissed.  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar, (in short ‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 21.7.2013 has passed the following order:

“The complaint of the complainant is accepted as above and the opposite party bank is directed to provide details of account No.1179 to the complainant within one month and ensure that Rs.10,000/- as compensation is provided to the complainant”.     

3.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred an appeal bearing No.164/2014 before the State Commission and passed the following order on 20.7.2018:-

“Appeal is allowed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 21.7.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and consumer complaint no.324 of 2013 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.  Amount deposited by the appellant be released in the appellant’s favour.”

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the petitioner in person at the admission stage. The petitioner stated that bank and its officials embezzled the amount from petitioner’s Account No.1179 and the account number of the petitioner/complainant has been changed.  It was further stated that the State Commission failed to appreciate that embezzlement has been committed by the respondent from the bank account of complainant. The District Forum has passed the order to give the information of account No.1179 to the complainant.  However, the State Commission has allowed the appeal of the opposite party bank and has set aside the order of the District Forum. Inspite of many applications given to the bank even under RTI, the information has not been given to the complainant.  It was requested to set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. 

6.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the petitioner and perused the record.  From the complaint of the petitioner/complainant, it seems that the petitioner is under the impression that account No.1179 was belonging to the petitioner, however, he has now been given another account No.17180  and due to memory lost after the accident, the bank officials have embezzled the amounts from account No.1179 of the petitioner.  In the last two paragraphs of the complaint following prayer has been made:-

“9.   That as per letter dated 23.2.2013 the Regional Office of OBC misled the complainant.  The bank employees have violated the banking Rules.  Also, by not obeying the Order of Central Information Commission the bank has violated law.

10.  That by changing the number of his account the employees have committed the crime of embezzlement of heavy amount from the account of the complainant.  Kindly in compliance of the letter dated 10.12.2011 provide necessary information of account number 1179. (with compensation)”

 7.     From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party bank for not providing the information as sought under the RTI.  The State Commission has rightly observed that there is a full-fledged administration system under the RTI Act and if the opposite party bank is not supplying information under the RTI Act, the petitioner/complainant can file first appeal and second appeal under the RTI Act itself.  Obviously, the consumer fora do not have powers under the RTI Act to direct the opposite party to provide information to the complainant.  Otherwise also, the information relating to account number is confidential and cannot be provided to a third party.  Accordingly, the order of the District Forum for providing information to the complainant in respect of account No.1179 was not sustainable.  A perusal of the orders passed by the fora below also shows that the complainant has not filed any documents in support of his assertion that he was having the account holder 1179.  The complainant has to prove his case on the basis of the documentary evidence which has not been filed by the complainant.  The State Commission has rightly accepted the appeal of the opposite party bank as no document was filed by the complainant to prove his case that he was the account holder of Account No.1179.

8.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 20.07.2018 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the revision petition No.2558 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage. 

9.      The petitioner has also filed an application for giving legal aid to the petitioner. However, in the light of the above discussion when no merit is found in the petition filed by the petitioner/complainant, I do not find any ground to provide legal aid to the petitioner/complainant.  Accordingly, application for legal aid is also dismissed.