Complaint No: 177 of 2019.

                                                               Date of Institution: 23.05.2019.

                                                                        Date of order:02.11.2023.

Ambika Aggarwal @ Ambica Somsanwal w/o Bharat Aggarwal, resident of House No. 60/2, Dharampura Colony, Batala.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .....Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                      VERSUS

1.       Punjab National Bank Head Office, Plot No.4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110075, through its Managing Director / CEO.

2.       Punjab National Bank (Zonal Office), Site No.5, Firozpur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab – 141012, through its Zonal Manager.

3.       Punjab National Bank House, Satyanarayan Bazar, Kapurthala, Punjab -144601, through its circle head.

4.       Punjab National Bank, G. T. Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab -143505, through its Branch Manager.

5.       PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No. FUF 5-8, Eminent Mall, Property Bearing No.10, Keneddy Avenue, (Near Passport Office) Mall Road, Amritsar, Punjab – 143001, through its Manager.

6.       Amit Kumar S/o Raj Kumar, Territory Manager, PNB MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd. Punjab National Bank, Batala.

2nd address:- House No. 33/180, Gali - Lala Ram Chand Bhandari, Bhandari Mohalla, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab - 143505.

                                                                                                                         ….Opposite parties.

                                              Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Bharat Aggarwal, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4: Sh.Pushkar Nanda, Advocate.  

    For the Opposite Party No.5: Sh.Vikas Sharma, Advocate.  

    For the Opposite Party No.6: Sh.Varun Gosain, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Ambika Aggarwal, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Punjab National Bank Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a reputed business woman and being a professional business woman the complainant having frequently dealing and have good relations with the financial institutions/organizations i.e. Banks. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 is a bank and opposite party No. 5 is a life insurance company and is working under the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 and is a circle office of the PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and the opposite party No. 6 is the employee of the opposite parties No.1 to 5. It is further pleaded that the complainant is having a saving account bearing No.0046000109294649 with the opposite parties with their branch at G.T. Road, Batala i.e. the OP No. 1. It is further submitted that at the time of opening the said saving account the complainant had trust on the all opposite parties bank because of the opposite parties bank is a nationalize bank and for that sake, the complainant opened a saving account bearing account No.0046000109294649 in the bank of the all opposite parties Bank at G.T. Road, Batala branch i.e. OP No. 4. It is further pleaded  that at the time of opening the Account, the complainant fulfilled all the requirements along with documents i.e. id proofs, Address proofs etc. as per demand by the opposite party No. 4 for opening a new account. It is further pleaded that complainant gave much information to the opposite parties bank as required by the opposite parties bank official staff on the pretext of formalities for opening a new accounts in opposite parties bank. It is further pleaded that during the time of opening said saving account by the complainant, the OP No. 6 was/is working as an employee in the opposite parties bank i.e. OP No.4. It is further pleaded that at the time of opening a new account of the complainant, the opposite parties bank i.e. OP No. 4 official staff gave assurance to the complainant that, the opposite parties bank will never disclose the information which has been given to the opposite parties bank by the complainant to anybody without the prior permission of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the husband of the complainant filed a civil suit in the concerned Court of law with the title "Bharat Aggarwal vs. Kewal Krishan etc." in which opposite parties bank is not a party. It is further pleaded that said suit is still pending in the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Divya Sharma, CJJD, Batala. It is further pleaded that on dated 21.01.2019, the OP No.6 joined as private witnesses for the defendant’s parties. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No.6 came for evidence without any summons. It is further pleaded  that during the evidence given by the OP No.6, he disclosed the designation of himself i.e. Territory Manager in PNB Metlife and he was authenticated by the opposite parties No. 1 to 5 for disclosing the information of the account of the complainant, which was lying with the opposite parties Bank. It is further pleaded that in his evidence he also disclosed the Account information of the complainant in the civil court of law. It is further pleaded  that at the time of disclosing information of the complainant in civil court of law, he also disclosed the opposite parties bank Name and branch i.e. opposite parties No. 4, where the complainant have the account with the opposite parties bank. It is further pleaded that certified copies of the statement of the OP No.6 and the order dated 21.01.2019 which shows the presence of the OP No. 6 and the civil suit with title "Bharat Aggarwal vs. Kewal Krishan and others". It is further pleaded that the complainant is having not any concern with the said titled dispute which was pending in the Hon'ble court of Ms. Divya Sharma, CJJD, Batala. It is further pleaded that even by disclosing the said information by the opposite parties bank i.e. OP No. 6, the complainant became unsecure from the fact that, opposite parties bank shared, can share and might have shared secret and confidential information of the complainant to anybody publically, by which the complainant can suffer any type of wrongful loss by the said wrongful act and conduct of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that by doing above said act the opposite parties bank i.e. OP No. 6, opposite parties violated the rule of governing the banking. It is further pleaded that above said act and conduct of the opposite parties might cause irreparable lose to the complainant anytime during her life. It is further pleaded that opposite parties also violated the rule of regularization of banking by disclosing the information of the Complainant. It is further pleaded that even the complainant submitted her information on the oath and felt secure to share her information to the opposite parties bank. It is further alleged that due to above mention act, the opposite parties have breached the trust of the complainant and also misappropriate the information submitted to opposite parties which is belonging to the complainant for the opposite parties wrongful gain and threaten to the complainant and by the opposite parties said act, the complainant became mentally harassed and become scary to face any irreparable loss in future just due to opposite parties above said wrongful conduct. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties have been thus extremely negligent in protecting her confidential information with regards to her saving account details. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to make the payment of amount of Rs.18,00,000/- as damages for the harassment and mental and physical agony suffered by the complainant due to the above mentioned illegal act of the opposite parties. It is further prayed that the opposite parties be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the complainant as the costs of the present complaint and as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit may also be granted in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that answering opposite parties No.1 to 4 are a separate entity doing only banking business and have no concern with the opposite parties No.5 and 6 in any manner. It is further pleaded that the complaint as against the answering opposite parties is not maintainable in the present form as no services were ever hired by the complainant from answering opposite parties at any point of time relating to the alleged matter in question and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering other parties in the alleged matter in question. It is further pleaded that alleged matter involved if any in the case is in between the complainant and opposite parties No.5 and 6 and answering opposite parties have been made as unnecessary party for none of its involvement in any manner in the alleged matter in question and thus answering opposite parties have no concern with the same except the fact that the complainant is having its account with answering opposite party No.4 only. It is further pleaded that answering opposite parties No.1 to 3 have unnecessarily been impleaded for none of their direct involvement in the alleged matter in question and the complaint against them is misuse of law and the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs for this unnecessarily involvement for this false litigation between the complainant and opposite parties No.5 and 6. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.5 is a separate entity having insurance business of its own and answering opposite parties No.1 to 4 have no concern with the opposite parties No.5 and 6 in any manner. It is further pleaded that the complainant is not the consumer of answering opposite parties regarding the matter in question in any manner and thus the complaint is not maintainable against them at all. It is further pleaded that from the contents of the complaint it is found that no loss has been caused to the complainant regarding the alleged matter in question and it is mere apprehension to the complainant that from the alleged act of opposite parties No.5 and 6, she may suffer some loss and moreover the alleged act does not fall under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and thus the complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that at the time of opening of the account of the complainant all the required formalities were complied with as per RBI guidelines. It is further pleaded that it is wrong that the complainant ever came in contact with opposite parties No.1 to 3 as alleged whereas the complainant did visit the office of opposite party No.4 for opening the account in question and opposite parties No.1 to 3 have no concern with the complainant regarding the matter in question and they have been impleaded as unnecessary parties to the complaint and thus all such pleadings are false and incorrect. It is further pleaded that it is also wrong that at the time of opening of the account in question the opposite party No.6 was working as employee of the opposite party No.4 as alleged. It is further pleaded that no information of the account holder is given to anyone except the account holder and it is a practice of the banking institutions. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite parties have no control over the opposite parties No.5 or 6 in any manner as alleged and moreover the answering opposite parties have no knowledge as and when the opposite party No.6 appeared in which court and in which case as no summons from any court were ever received or served upon on any of the answering opposite parties and thus all such pleadings are false and incorrect and vehemently denied. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties under any circumstances.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.5 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Commission as the same is out of the preview of Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that complainant is not the consumer of answering opposite party as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed and the complaint is false, frivolous, vague & vexatious in nature and has been filed only to injure the interest and reputation of answering opposite party. It is further pleaded  that therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the answering opposite party into uncalled litigation though the fact that the dispute does not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that complainant did not avail any services of opposite party No.5 at any point of time as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that complainant alleged in her complaint that she is having saving bank account with the opposite parties No.1 to 4. It is further pleaded that from the averment of the complaint, it is emerged that the dispute is with regard to the evidence given in the civil suit titled Bharat Aggarwal vs. Kewal Krishan by the OP No.6, the said alleged evidence if any was given by the OP No. 6 in his personal capacity and appeared on behalf of Kewal Krishan and it is alleged that the said witness disclosed the bank account number of complainant in the proceeding. It is further pleaded that therefore the dispute does not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that relevant proviso section 2(d) of the Act is reproduced as under for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Commission. The person who brought the complaint under the act should have bought any goods or availed any services and further there must be any defect or imperfection in services, whereas from the contents of entire complaint, there is not even a single instance to prove that the complainant ever availed any services of answering opposite party at any point of time. It is further pleaded that answering opposite party has no concern what so ever with the bank account of complainant with the opposite parties No.1 to 4 as the applicant is the separate entity. It is further pleaded that therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainant failed to show any cause of action or law under which proviso he impleaded the answering opposite party as party in the present complaint. It is further pleaded  that therefore the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Commission and the same is liable to be dismissed and the present complaint is clear cut flagrant misuse of the process of law as well as the consumer protection act as per the settled law. It is further pleaded that Consumer Protection Act does not give right to any person to use consumer protection act as to settle his personal score or grudges. It is further pleaded that present complaint is clear cut case of using the Consumer Protection Act as tool for undue gains and benefits. It is further pleaded that if such types of mischievous complaints are allowed to proceed, then it will defeat the very purpose of Consumer Protection Act, for which the act was enacted by legislature. It is further pleaded  that the answering opposite party reserves his right to initiate criminal as well as civil proceeding against the complainant for unnecessary dragging into uncalled litigation and for loss of reputation and the answering opposite party is entitled to get the special cost of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for unnecessarily dragging them into uncalled litigation.

          On merits, the opposite party No.5 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.6 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Commission as the same is out of the preview of Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that complainant is not the consumer of answering opposite party as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed and the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and has been filed in grudge for giving the evidence by the answering opposite party in the civil suit titled Bharat Aggarwal vs. Kewal Krishan. It is further pleaded that answering opposite party appeared as witness on behalf of Kewal Krishan defendant against the husband of complainant in the said civil suit. It is further pleaded that therefore by filing the present complaint, the complainant wants to harass the answering opposite party and put pressure upon him. It is further pleaded that No consumer disputes arise between the complainant and the opposite party and therefore the present complaint is nothing more than the gross misuse of the process of law. It is further pleaded that therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with punitive costs of Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the answering opposite party reserves his right to initiate criminal as well as civil proceeding against the complainant for unnecessary dragging him into uncalled litigation and for loss of repudiation. It is pleaded that the complainant did not obtained any services of answering opposite party at any point of time, therefore the complainant is out of the preview of Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that it is wrong that the answering opposite party is the employee of OP’s No.1 to 4. It is further pleaded that answering opposite party is working with the OP No.5. It is further pleaded that it is also wrong that the complainant is having any bank account with answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that complainant might have bank account with OP’s No.1 to 4. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite party has no concern with opening the bank account with the OP’s No.1 to 4 and as already stated above, the answering opposite party is working with the OP No.5 therefore, have no concern in the working of OP’s No.1 to 4 in opening the bank account. It is further pleaded that OP No.5 is the separate entity from the OP’s No.1 to 4. It is further pleaded that the husband of the complainant namely Bharat Aggarwal filed a civil suit titled Bharat Aggawal vs. Kewal Krishan before the Civil Court, Batala and the answering opposite party appeared as a witness on behalf of Mr. Kewal Krishan in the said civil suit. It is further pleaded that it is cleared that the answering opposite party disclosed the bank account number of the complainant. It is further pleaded that a bare perusal of the cross examination would show that the answering opposite party never disclosed the bank account information in the civil court, Rather in the cross examination on the question asked by the counsel of Bharat Aggarwal that how you know the Bharat Aggarwal, the answering opposite party replied that he know Bharat Aggarwal being the neighbourer and Ambika Aggarwal visited in the bank about 4-5 years ago for opening the bank account. It is further pleaded that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the answering opposite party in grudge only to harass the answering opposite party in counter blast to the evidence given by the answering opposite party in the civil suit against husband of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant is not the consumer of the answering opposite party and complainant is having no concern with the bank account of the complainant.

          On merits, the opposite party No.6 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

6.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed an affidavit of Ambika Aggarwal, (Complainant) alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Har Dalbir Singh, (Branch Manager, P.N.B Branch Batala) as Ex.OP-1 to 4/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4.

8.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Sharma, (Senior Manager Legal, PNB Met life India Ins. Co. Ltd., Gurgaon) as Ex.OPW-5/1 alongwith reply.

9.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.6 has filed an affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Batala alongwith reply.

10.     Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

11.     Written arguments not filed by the parties.

12.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is having bank account number with opposite party No.4 and opposite party No.6 is employee of opposite parties No.1 to 5. It has further argued that at the time of opening of account information was obtained by the bank. However, opposite party No.6 appeared as a witness in civil suit titled as "Bharat Aggarwal vs. Kewal Krishan etc." which was pending in the court of Ms.Divya Sharma, CJJD, Batala and during his statement before said court of law as DW-2, the opposite party No.6 disclosed information regarding the account of the complainant maintained with opposite party No.4 and the said act was done with motive to cause loss to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.

13.     On the other counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 4 has argued that opposite parties No.5 and 6 are different entity and the opposite parties No.1 to 4 have no relation with them as such present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed.

14.     Counsels for the opposite parties No.5 and 6 have argued that although opposite party No.6 appeared as a private witness without summons but had not disclosed any secret information on behalf of bank. Moreover, opposite party No.6 is employee of opposite party No.5 and both opposite parties No.5 and 6 have no concern to the customer information of the bank. Even perusal of cross-examination Ex.C4 does not disclose as to what information was disclosed by opposite party No.6 and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

15.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

16.     It is admitted fact that complainant is having A/c No. 0046000109294649 with the opposite party No.4. It is further admitted fact that opposite party No.6 is employee of opposite party  5 and is using office premises of opposite party No.4.

17.     To prove her case complainant has placed on record her duly sworn affidavit, copy of pass book Ex.C1, copies of plaint, order of CJJD, Batala and cross-examination Ex.C2 to C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5 and copy of RTI information Ex.C15.

18.     We have gone through the cross-examination of DW-2 i.e. opposite party No.6 placed in present case copy of which is Ex.C4. The cross-examination is in two pages and we have gone through the entire cross-examination of two pages and in the 10th line of the cross-examination following words are mentioned:-

          "The plaintiff had a bank account with PNB G.T. road Batala again said the wife of the plaintiff had the account with the said bank               and not the plaintiff". 

Except these lines the said witness had not disclosed any other information. Even the account number or other details has not been disclosed by opposite party No.6 and moreover the said question was put in cross-examination by the counsel for husband of the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that details of bank account were given by opposite party No.6 in his examination-in-chief. Even complainant has not produced copy of examination-in-chief which fully establishes that the said question as referred above was asked by the counsel for husband of the complainant intentionally to make the ground for institution of the present complaint. Moreover, the complainant has not disclosed as to what loss she has suffered on account of statement having been got recorded in the court by the opposite party No.6 and as such we do find any merit in the present complaint and there is  no deficiency in service and business malpractice is also not establish against the opposite parties. Moreover, opposite party No.6 had appeared as a private witness and not on behalf of the bank or opposite parties No.1 to 5.

19.     As such present complaint is ordered to be dismissed.

20.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

21.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                        President.                                                

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Nov. 02, 2023                                                       Member.

*YP*