Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 312.
Instituted on : 2.7.2019.
Decided on : 28.11.2024
- Dr. TammannaR.Sahrawat D/o Late Col. (Retd.) RaveeSahrawat.
- Mrs. UjjwalSahrawat W/o Late Col.(Retd.) RaveeSahrawat, both R/o House No.90, Sector 2-B, Chandigarh.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Main Branch Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Mrs. Loveleen N. Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that the saving Bank account no.11075525883 in the SBI, Civil Lines, Main Branch, Rohtak is held in the joint names of the complainants. Mrs. UjjwalSahrawat, the second account holder is a Senior Citizen and widow of a retired army officer and mother of the complainant no.1. An Eviction petition under Rent Law, RP 20 of 2017 titled UjjwalSahrawatVs. M/s Ajay Garments was filed by the landlady UjjwalSahrawat against her tenant M/s Ajay Garments in 2017, and the same is pending adjudication in the Court of Rent Controller, Rohtak. On 29.05.2019, a representative of SBI, Civil Lines Main Branch Rohtak, Mr. RadheyShyam, who identified himself as Clerk of the above said bank, placed on record the complete statement of account of the complainants from the period 2014 till May 2019(31 pages) in the said petition, who appeared as RW3 in the above said petition, without the consent of the complainants or any Court order to this effect. The complainant no.1 visited the Branch and met the Assistant General Manager, SBI on 29.5.2019 and apprised him of the breach of trust, privacy and confidentiality committed by the Bank but he refused to listen to reason and vehemently insisted that the Bank had every right to disclose the information. Thereafter, the complainant no.1 served notice to the Bank on 30.5.2019 for their acts of omission and commission but till date no reply to the notice has been received by the complainant. The complete details of transactions of personal saving account of the complainants from 2014 till May, 2019 have been supplied by the opposite party, as a witness of the tenant of complainant no.2 in legal proceedings under Rent law, in which the opposite party is not a party and without any Court order/direction as mandated under law. Such disclosure by the bank is explicitly barred under statutory provisions of the Section 5 of the Banker’s Book Evidence Act 1891 and Section 44 of the State Bank of India Act 1959. The Act of the opposite party, the Bank is a grave misconduct, breach of trust, privacy, and confidentiality being illegal, unjust and amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- each to both the complainants towards mental harassment alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of its accrual till realization and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses and other costs incurred as miscellaneous charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that the opposite party received summon from the Court of Shri Bharat Rent Controller, Rohtak for appearance on 29.05.2019 alongwith statement of account of TammanaRaveeSahrawat and UjjawalSahrawat from 1.4.2014 till date, of account no.11075525883 and accordingly, as per direction of Court, the said record was produced in the Court. It is further submitted that there is no breach of trust, privacy and confidentiality committed by the Bank. It is further submitted that the said record was produced in the Court as per direction issued by the Court. The notice dated 30.5.2019, issued by the complainant was based on wrong facts and after receiving the notice, the Assistant General Manager of the opposite party apprised the complainant with the facts and clearly stated that the record was produced in the Court only as per direction issued by the Court. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Complainant No.1 in her evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed her evidence on dated 14.11.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed her evidence on dated 25.2.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through written arguments filed by both the parties as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that opposite party has disclosed the complete details of transactions of personal saving account of the complainants from 2014 till May, 2019 in legal proceedings under Rent law, without the consent of complainants and without any Court order/direction as mandated under law. It is further contended that such disclosure by the bank contravenes the commitment of the bank to its customers and is explicitly barred under statutory provisions of the Section 5 of the Banker’s Book Evidence Act 1891 and Section 44 of the State Bank of India Act 1959. To prove the same, complainant has placed on record, ‘The Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891’. As per section 5 & 6 of this Act, it is submitted as under:
Section 5.Case in which officer of bank not compellable to produce books:No officer of a bank shall in any legal proceeding to which the bank is not a party be compellable to produce any banker's book the contents of which can be proved under this Act, or to appear as a witness to prove the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded, unless by order of the Court or a Judge made for special cause.
Section 6.Inspection of books by order of Court or Judge: (1) On the application of any party to a legal proceeding the Court or a Judge may order that such party be at liberty to inspect and take copies of any entries in a banker's book for any of the purposes of such proceeding, or may order the bank to prepare and produce, within a time to be specified in the order, certified copies of all such entries, accompanied by a further certificate that no other entries are to be found in the books of the bank relevant to the matters in issue in such proceeding, and such further certificate shall be dated and subscribed in mannerhereinbefore directed in reference to certified copies.
(2) An order under this or the preceding section may be made either with or without summoning the bank and shall be served on the bank three clear days (exclusive of bank holidays) before the same is to be obeyed, unless the Court or Judge shall otherwise direct.
(3) The bank may at any time before the time limited for obedience to any such order as aforesaid either offer to produce their books at the trial or give notice of their intention to show cause against suchorder, and thereupon the same not be enforced without further order.
6. We have also perused the document Ex.C8, the rules of ‘The state Bank of India Act, 1955 and as per Section 44 of the same it is submitted that: “Obligation as to fidelity and secrecy-(i) The State Bank shall observe, except as otherwise required by law, the practices and usages customary among bankers, and, in particular, it shall not divulge any information relating to or to the affairs of its constituents except in circumstances in which it is, in accordance with the law or practice and usage customary among bankers, necessary or appropriate for the State Bank of divulge such information,
(ii) Every director member of a Local Board or of a Local Committee, auditor, adviser, officer of other employee of the state Bank shall, before entering upon his duties, make a declaration of fidelity and secrecy as in the form set out in the Second Schedule.
(iii) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the credit information disclosed under the Credit Information companies(Regulation) Act, 2005(30 of 2005).
Complainant has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in AIR2017SC4161 titled as Justice K.S.Puttaswamy and Ors. Vs. Union of India(UOI) and Ors., decided on 24.08.2017 and while referring the judgment in Ram Jethmalani Vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0711/2011: (2011) 8SCC1(“Ram Jethmalani”), wherein it was held that: “The revelation of the details of the bank accounts of individuals without the establishment of a prima facie ground of wrongdoing would be a violation or right to privacy. This Court observed thus: “Right to privacy is an integral part of right to life. This is a cherished constitutional value, and it is important that human beings be allowed domains of freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful manner”. Reliance has also been placed on the case law Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited Vs. state Bank of Tranvancore, Trivendrum and Ors.(AIR1992Ker351)
7. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that opposite party has produced the record in the Court as summoned by the Court of Rent Controller, Rohtak. The opposite party cannot disobey the directions issued by the Court and no act on the part of opposite party is illegal. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the law reported in “2002(1)CLT 635, 637, 639 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore titled as Samrat Exports Vs. Bank of Baroda and another.
8. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the law cited above. After perusal of the same we have observed that
it is the prime duty of the bank that they should provide the legal assistance to their employees, clerk or Manager when they appear before the Civil Court or any Commission to place on record any account statement or information of their customers, when they are summoned by any Court of Law, because they are unaware of the fact that whether the rules of the bank allow them to produce such document before the Court of law or not. In the present case the respondent bank failed to provide any legal assistance to their employees. As per our opinion, here the bank is working in a deficient manner because the Civil Court has summoned the record of the consumer of the respondent and the employee of the bank without any protest or objection produced the same before the Civil Court. Hence the opposite party has acted against the Section 5 & 6 of ‘The Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891’ explained above and the law cited above by ld. Counsel for the complainant are fully applicable on the fact and circumstances of the case and on the other hand law cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) from the date of order i.e. 28.11.2024 till its realisation to the complainant.
10. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
28.11.2024
.......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
