PER:
Nidhi Verma, Member
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11, 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is having account (joint account) in the name of Saloni Berry and Pawan Berry in bank having bank account No. 6502761565-9 with the opposite parties. The complainant is running the above said account in bank of opposite parties since long and always remained satisfied with the services provided by the bank of opposite parties with no complaint ever. Complainant has never become defaulter in any manner or no complaint has ever been made before opposite parties regarding the services provided by bank of the opposite parties, as such, complainant has reposed trust and faith in opposite parties and always feels satisfied with the services provided by bank of opposite parties. Recently, opposite party No. 1 has done some acts with regard to account of complainant which is highly unethical, illegal and immoral on his part. The opposite party No. 1 has revealed the details of account of complainant to some third person which is against the rules and regulations of Banking Laws and moreover, against the directions of Reserve Bank of India pertaining to privacy of account holder. The opposite party No. 1 has revealed the total account detail of complainant to Sham Kumar having his shop and residence at Jai Singh Chowk, Amritsar. The above said act on the part of opposite parties is clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Further it violates the right of privacy of complainant which is fundamental right granted to complainant by the Constitution of India. The above said act of opposite party No. 1 has broken the trust and faith of complainant which has been reposed by him before institution of opposite parties since long and this cause mental harassment to complainant to great extent. Feeling aggrieved complainant served legal notice dated 09.09.2017 upon the opposite parties thereby calling them to tender unconditional apology from complainant and to give assurance and undertaking that in further such type of illegal acts will not done by any official of bank of opposite parties and also to pay damages and compensation amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and also to pay Rs. 11,000/- as cost of this legal notice but the opposite parties have miserably failed to give reply to the legal notice dated 9.9.2017. The above said acts of the opposite parties in not resolving the grievances of the complainant is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and malpractice. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs:-
(i) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to resolve the grievances of the complainant and to tender unconditional written apology from complainant.
(ii) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant as damages and compensation to the complainant for causing mental harassment.
(iii) Opposite parties may kindly be directed to ay complete cost of the present litigation amounting to Rs. 22,000/-
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not legally maintainable as the same is an abuse of process of the court of law and this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. No cause of action has arisen in favour of complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party. The opposite party Bank was earlier carrying on banking business under the name and style of State Bank of Patiala and as per the policy of Government of India, the said bank was merged in State Bank of India, but complainant not made the State Bank of India as party in the present complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that no act has been done which would be against the rules and regulations of the Banking Law and against the directions of the Reserve Bank of India pertaining to privacy of the account holder. If any third person comes to any branch of the bank for clearance of the cheque issued by the account holder of the bank of any branch, then it is the duty of the bank that after verifying the genuineness of the cheque, to clear the same. And if the account holder is having insufficient fund in his account, then the bank is bound to return the same due to insufficient fund. So, it does not amount to revealing the detail of account of a third person, so there is a possibility that Sham Kumar might have presented the cheque for clearance and the same might have been returned due to insufficient funds. When no detail of the account of the complainant was given to the said person, then there is no question of deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not having a savings account with the Branch of opposite party No. 1, the complainant is having an account in Katra Jaimal Singh Branch. The complainant is not entitled to get any damages or compensation. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of legal notice Ex. C-2, Postal receipts Ex. C-3, C-4, copy of account detail of the complainant Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties have tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Pranav Ranjan, Branch Manager Ex. OP1, 2/1 and closed the evidence.
5 We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
6 The complainant is having saving account (joint account) in the name of Saloni Berry and Pawan Berry in the bank having account Number 65027615659 with the opposite party. The complainant is running the above said account in the bank of opposite party since a long and always remained satisfied with the services provided by bank of opposite party with no complaint ever and never become defaulter in any manner or no complaint has ever been made before opposite party regarding the service provided by bank of opposite party. As per complainant, the opposite party No 1 has revealed the details of account of complaint to some third person (Sham Kumar having shop and residence at Jai Singh Chownk, Amritsar) which is against the rules and regulations of Reserve Bank of India pertaining to privacy of account holder. The complainant served legal notice dated 9.9.2017 upon the opposite party thereby calling them to render unconditional apology from complainant and to give assurance and undertaking that in future such type of illegal acts will not done by any official of bank of opposite party and also to pay damages and compensation, but the opposite party has miserably failed to give reply to the legal notice dated 9.9.2017. In the written version of opposite party stated that the complaint is incorrect and denied , it is denied that opposite party No. 1 has done my illegal CTS with regard to the account of the complainant . It is also denied that the opposite party No 1 has revealed the details of the account of the complainant to some third person . No act has been done which would be against the rules and regulations of the banking law and against the directions of the Reserve Bank of India pertaining to privacy of the account holder. The opposite party stated that if any third person comes to any branch of the bank for clearance of a cheque issued by the account holder of the bank of any branch , then it is the duty of the bank that after verifying the genuineness of the cheque , to clear the same and if the account holder is having insufficient funds in his account, then the bank is bound to return the same due to insufficient fund .So it does not amount to reveal the details of the account to a third person , so there is a possibility that Sham Kumar might have presented the cheque for clearance and the same might have been returned due to insufficient funds .
7 The combined and harmonious reading of the pleading and documents placed on record prove that the complaint is having saving account in the name of Saloni Berry and Pawan Berry in bank having Bank account Number 6502761565-9 with the opposite parties. Since long and always remained satisfied with the services provided by bank of opposite parties with no complaint ever. As per the complainant the opposite party No1 has revealed the total account detail of complainant to Sham Kumar , which is clearly deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Further it also violates the right of privacy of complainant but complainant has failed to submit any written proof that opposite parties have revealed the account detail of complainant to any third-party i.e Sham Kumar moreover complainant has not suffered any monetary loss as per their written version . In written Version opposite party denied that opposite party No. 1 has revealed the total amount detail of the complainant to Sham Kumar .they stated that if any 3rd person come to any branch of the bank for clearance of a cheque issued by the account holder of the bank then it is the duty of the bank that after verifying the genuineness of the cheque, to clear the same and if the account holder is having insufficient fund in his account then the bank is bound to return the same due to insufficient fund . So it doesn’t amount to revealing the details of the account to a third person, when no detail of the account of the complainant was given to said person then the no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has arisen. The complainant is simply relying upon the document Ex. C-5. But bare perusal of this document does not prove that the account detail was revealed to Sham Kumar. There is no evidence on record that this account detail was issued to Sham Kumar by the bank. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove on record that in what manner he has been effected by the act of the bank by receiving the account details to the third person. In this regard the complainant has not placed on record the guideline regarding revealing of account details to third person. As banks are completely aware about the rules and regulations of banking laws and moreover the directions of Reserve Bank of India pertaining to privacy of account holder so there is no such act has been done by bank which would amount of deficiency in service, unfair, trade practice and mal-practice .
8 We are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency on the part of opposite parties, as such, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of order will be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
28.07.2022
