THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
APPEAL NO. 146/2022
PRESENT
SRI.RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER
Madhu Gopalan,
S/o. Late L.S.Gopalan,
Aged 77 years, ..… Appellant/s
R/at 51, Chiranjeevi layout,
Hebbal, Kempapura,
Bengaluru-560024,
(In person)
-Versus-
- The Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Abhirampuram, …..Respondent/s
Chennai-600018
- The Punjab National Bank,
Anand Nagar branch,
Hebbal, Bengaluru-560024
(Respondents No.1&2: Sri.S.R.Harish
Kumar, Advocate)
ORDERS
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complainant in complaint No.539/2020 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore Urban which dismissed the complaint as there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and submits that the complainant is an account holder of the Opposite Parties bank having S.B. Account bearing No.1567000100006354, Anandnagar, Hebbal, Bengaluru and the same has been operated at Abirampuram branch, Chennai. The complainant came to know that one G.Vijayalakshmi had furnished the statement of account belonging to complainant before the Senior Citizen Assistant Commissioner Court when he saw the statement of account it reflected the complainant’s account number. The complainant wondered how this statement of account was produced by the said G.Vijayalakshmi and immediately he approached the Opposite Parties bank with respect to issuance of such statement but the Opposite Parties bank have not explained properly. Issuance of the statement of account without permission/consent is a violation of privacy of contract of complainant, hence alleged deficiency of service and filed the complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission without considering the allegations dismissed the complaint. Hence prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission and to direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation.
2. The complainant further submits that the statement produced by the said G.Vijayalakshmi before the Senior Citizen Assistant Commissioner Court reflects the withdrawals of the amount from 30-11-2015 to 02-11-2019 and the statement produced by the complainant which also reflects the same and both statement of account tallies each other, hence without his permission the Opposite Parties bank have supplied the statement of account to the unknown person, hence prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission.
3. Heard from both parties.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed here that, the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service for supply of statement of account of the complainant account no.1567000100006354 to one G.Vijayalakshmi. The said G.Vijayalakshmi has produced the same before the Senior Citizen Assistant Commissioner Court and noticing the same the complainant suspected the Opposite Parties bank for supply of statement of account/information to the unknown person without his consent.
5. On going through the both statement of account produced by the complainant and annexure-R1 which was produced by one G.Vijayalakshmi it is noticed that there are some the entries in the statement of account are reflected in the statement of account produced by one G.Vijayalakshmi. The Opposite Parties bank has not explained properly how the information was received by one G.Vijayalakshmi. Of course, it is bounden duty of the bank to protect the customer’s information and it should not be leaked to the any other third person without obtaining consent from the customers. Once the complainant opened account at Opposite Parties bank it is an implied contract between them to not to furnish statement of accounts to any other third person without consent except to the authorities like ED, CBI etc. as per notice to furnish. In this case, it is an admitted fact that, the statement of account produced by one G.Vijayalakshmi is statement of account of the complainant bearing account no.1567000100006354. It is clear a case of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties bank. The District Commission while adjudicating the matter had not appreciated the allegations made out by the complainant. It is also noticed that, the Opposite Parties have taken a simple contention that, they have not supplied the information to the any other person. Without supplying such information, we wonder how the statement of account was produced by one third person before the Senior Citizen Assistant Commissioner Court. Though no loss or suffering caused by the complainant sharing any information of the complainant’s account to the third person amounts to deficiency of service as such the complainant is entitled to get a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000-00 (Rs. Fifty thousand). Accordingly the order passed by the District Commission is hereby set-aside and the appeal is allowed and the Opposite Parties bank is directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000-00 (Rs. Fifty thousand) to the complainant within sixty days from the date of this order and along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000-00 to the complainant. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000-00 (Rs.Ten thousand) to the complainant.
The impugned order dated 10-01-2022 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru Urban in CC.No.539/2020 is hereby set-aside and complaint is partly allowed.
The Opposite Parties bank is directed to pay Rs.50,000-00 (Rs. Fifty thousand) to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service within sixty days from the date of this order.
Forward copy of the order to both parties as well as District Consumer Commission.
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
