State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms Deepti Devendra Jain vs Icici Bank on 9 May, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/13/164
Ms Deepti Devendra Jain
C/o Devendra Kundanlal Jain, 21-B, Kahan Nagar
Society, N C Kelkar Road Dadar(W)
Mumbai 400028
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
ICICI Bank
Through The Branch Manager, Dadar Gokhale Road
Branch Guruprasad Building, Anant Patil Marg Gokhale Road Dadar, Mumbai
400028
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.Amogh Karandikar, Advocate for the Complainant ORAL ORDER Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard at length Ld.counsel Mr.Amogh Karandikar appearing for the complainant on admission.
As alleged by the complainant, she had a joint Saving account with her mother
-Mrs.Sudha Devendra Jain bearing Saving Account no.641201502172 with the opponent bank-ICICI Bank. She had a dispute with her husband by name Mr.Promise Satyendra Fuskelay and which is pending in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. In the said case pending before the Family Court, her husband filed his affidavit dated 10/05/2011 as his Examination-in-chief and, in which, as alleged, he made a statement that he had credited amounts from time to time, total amounting to `1,17,921/- till 05/08/2011 in the above referred account of the complainant. It is further alleged by the complainant that account details in which those amounts were credited were not supposed to be within the knowledge of her ex-husband Fuskelay and, therefore, in a cross examination taken on her behalf in the proceeding before the Family Court, her ex-husband Fuskelay disclosed that he came to know about her saving account number from the ICICI Bank. Feeling outraged by such disclosure, complainant feels that the bank in breach of their duty towards her had disclosed highly confidential information of her bank account to her ex-husband and which resulted into serious mental and financial harassment to her. On such assertions she had sent a notice dated 17/07/2012 to the opponent Bank and asked them to pay compensation to which bank replied on 30/07/2012 denying passing or sharing any information to her ex-husband Fuskelay or to anybody else and asked for certain details from her. Thereafter, this consumer complaint came to be filed claiming compensation of `25,00,000/- and further amount of `3,56,250/- as interest accrued over the amount of compensation claimed at 18% p.a. from 17/02/2012 till filing of the consumer complaint.
At the first instance, we find that since the bank categorically denied in their reply or letter dated 28/08/2012 and 10/10/2012 about committing any breach of confidentially on their part, passing any information to any third party much less to her ex-husband, it is for the complainant to prima facie establish that the bank did disclose any such information to any third party and more particularly to her ex-husband. Mere relying upon statement during the cross examination of her husband that he had collected the information from the bank, cannot be such material of any prima facie proof that the bank committed breach of duty of confidentiality towards her as their customer. Bank has asked for certain details (about bank statement) which according to complainant were not with her and, therefore, she could not supply the same to the bank. Whatever it may be, what we find, prima facie, no case is made out by the complainant to substantiate the case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Hence, we find no merit in the consumer complaint. The same is not admitted and stands disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 9th May, 2013.
[HON'BLE MR.
S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR.
S.B.Sawarkar] MEMBER Ms.