BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Om Parkash s/o late Sh.Mukand Lal, # 5729-A, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  State Bank of India, Panjab University Branch, Sector 14, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager.

2]  State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its General Manager (Network-1).

3]  Ravinder Sharma, # 707/1, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh-160 036.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL               PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL    MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

          Sh.S.K.Gupta, Counsel for OP No.1 & 2.         

Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Counsel for OP No.3.

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

        It is case of the complainant that he and his daughter had opened joint S.B. A/c No.10445177514 with OP No.1. At the time of opening of S.B.A/c, the OP No.1 promised that the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers issued by the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India will be followed and adhered to in all future dealings. As per clause 5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers, the OP No.1 was liable to treat all personal information of complainant as private and confidential and would not reveal information or data relating to accounts of the complainant to any.

        It is further the case of the complainant that in violation of clause 5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customer, the OP No.1 has disclosed all his personal, private and confidential information to OP No.3 by providing the bank statement w.e.f. 31.12.2006 to 21.03.2008. The complainant wrote a letter to OP No.2 on 15.09.2010 with regard to it. The OP No.1 vide his letter dated 21.9.2010 replied that the disclosure of bank statements of the account of the complainant was submitted in the Hon’ble Court of Shri Amit Sharma, JMIC, Chandigarh, in connection with a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

        It is further the case of the complainant that that OP No.1 has not submitted the bank statement in the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh, rather the same was submitted by another SME Branch of State Bank of India, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh for the period from 1.4.2008 to 30.6.2008. The statement of bank account disclosed by OP No.1 pertains to the period from 31.12.2006 to 21.3.2008.

        It is further the case of the complainant that OP No.1 disclosed private and confidential information to OP No.3 without his knowledge, confirmation and authority letter. It is further stated that the said act of OP No.1 is illegal, unethical, unjust, unfair trade practices, so OP No.1 has been deficient in providing service to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

2.      OP No.1 & 2 filed joint reply. It is replied that OP No.1 had neither disclosed any information nor provided any statement of account to the OP No.3. However, it is stated that information was submitted in the Hon’ble Court of Sh.Amit Sharma, JMIC, Chandigarh, in compliance of summons received in connection with the case under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on their part and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.      OP No.3 filed reply and took preliminary objection that complainant is not a Consumer. On merits, it is denied that the answering OP No.3 has received any information regarding the saving account of the complainant from OP No.1. In view of this, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

6.       Admittedly, the Complainant opened a joint S.B. Account No. 10445177514 with OP No.1. It is the case of the Complainant that as per Clause 5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers, OP No. 1 was liable to treat all personal information of Complainant as private and confidential. The grouse of the Complainant is that in violation of Clause 5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers, OP No.1 had supplied and disclosed his personal, private and confidential information to OP No.3, by providing bank statement with effect from 31.12.2006 to 21.03.2008. It is the case of the Complainant that he wrote a letter dated 15.9.2010 to OP No. 2 and in reply thereto, it was stated that the statements of account of the Complainant was submitted in the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh in connection with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said stand raised by the OP Bank has been challenged by the Complainant by stating that OP No. 1 has not submitted the accounts statement in the court of JMIC, Chandigarh. It is also the grouse of the Complainant that OP No. 1 disclosed private and confidential information to OP No. 3, without his knowledge, so the said act of the OP Bank is illegal.

7.       The OPs No. 1 and 2 had raised the plea that it has not provided any statement of account of the Complainant to OP No. 3. The information was submitted in the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh, in compliance of the summons received in connection with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

8.       Now, the point which calls determination from this Court is whether the OP Nos. 1 & 2 had violated clause 5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers. The answer to this is in the negative.

9.       The Complainant has alleged that the statement of account has been supplied by OP No. 1 to OP No. 3, without his knowledge. But, the said fact has been denied by OP No. 3 in the reply filed by him, which is supported by his affidavit and also in the written arguments filed in the Court.

10.      Annexure C-2 is the extract of Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers. Clause 5 (a) of the same reads as under:-

         “5. Privacy and Confidentiality:

We will treat all your personal information as private and confidential (even when you are no longer a customer) and shall be guided by the following principles and policies. We will not reveal information or data relating to your accounts, whether provided by you or otherwise, to anyone, including other companies entities in our group, other than in the following cases:-

(a)   If we have to give the information by law;

xxxx         xxxx         xxxx       xxxx

               xxxx          xxxx         xxxx

A perusal of clause 5[a], referred to above, makes it ample clear that the personal, private and confidential information can be supplied, if a Bank had to give the information by law.   

11.      Annexure C-6 is a copy of the summon, issued by the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh, whereby the concerned official/clerk from State Bank of India, Sector 14, Chandigarh has been summoned, along with complete record, including the copy of statement of A/c No. 10445177514 of Om Parkash (Complainant) for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2009.

12.      Now, it is proved beyond doubt that the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh had asked for the copy of statement of account of A/c No. 10445177514 of the Complainant for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2009. The Complainant vide Para No.3 of the complaint has given the details of the information disclosed by the Bank from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. Admittedly, the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh, vide Annexure C-6 had asked the OP No. 1 to provide the copy of statement of account of the Complainant for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2009. Therefore, it can be concluded without any hesitation that OP No. 1 Bank had disclosed the information from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 on the orders passed by the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh. Hence, it can legitimately be concluded that the OP No.1 Bank had not violated clause 5 of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers, referred to above, as the statement of account from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 has been disclosed in compliance of the order issued by the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh qua Annexure C-6.    

13.      Now, it is proved on record that the Bank has provided the statement of account of the Complainant in compliance of Clause 5 (a) of the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the OPs are not guilty of rendering deficient services or unfair trade practice.

14.      As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.