State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Mallanagouda.R.Patil vs The Chief Manager on 9 February, 2024
1 CC/189/2019
Date of Filing : 04.04.2019
Date of Disposal : 09.02.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
CC-NO.189/2019
Dr.Mallanagouda.R.Patil
Aged about 40 Years,
S/o Late Ranganagouda Patil,
No.100/19, 1st Floor, G.Street,
Jogupalya Main Road,
Halasuru, Bengaluru-560008 . . ..Complainant/s
(By Adv.Sri.Ajay.M.D)
VS
1.
The Chief Manager
State Bank of India,
Basaveshwaranagar Branch (09049),
No.325, Rudrappa Complex,
8th Main, III Stage,
IV Block, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560079 ... Opposite party/s
(By Adv.Sri.J.Sathishkumar)
ORDER
BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This complaint is filed U/s.17 of CPA 1986 against the OP to pay damages amounting to Rs.25 lakhs for rendering deficiency in 2 CC/189/2019 service and to reprimand the OP not to disclose the bank account details of its customers to the third parties.
2. The facts in brief as stated by the Complainant would be, he had savings bank account with OP bank bearing no.30035331531. As a consumer of the OP, on verification of his pass book found an unauthorised debit entry of Rs.118/- on 17.10.2017 and on an enquiry of OP branch, revealed either a duplicate pass book or statement of account has been issued at 9049 branch, which was unacceptable, since such act amounts not only violation of banking laws but also RBI guidelines. In his case as duplicate copy of his statement of account is disclosed to third party is entitled for Rs.25 lakhs as damages for rendering deficiency in service along with litigation cost.
3. OP bank had contested the complaint through learned counsel, contending, the alleged issuance of copy of statement of account was issued in good faith and with bonafide intention to the wife of complainant by name Smt.Rooa. It is submitted as she had represented before the OP stating had instructions from her husband to obtain copy of statement of account. The staff of bank trusted the credibility and bonafides of wife of the Complainant and without having any suspension or doubt issued statement of account to her and debited Rs.118/- to his account and when it 3 CC/189/2019 was brought to the notice of the bank that such issuance of statement of account was wrong immediately Rs.118/- was credited to his account and wrote a letter expressing their sorry and such incidents will not be repeat in due course of time.
4. Further would contend the e Complainant has failed to disclose the information as to Cri.Mis.Petition/574/2016, pending on the file of 2nd Addl., Family Court, Bengaluru, in his complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. In view of rival contentions of parties to the complaint, Complainant submitted affidavit evidence and documents. On the contrary, OP also submits affidavit evidence. After closure of enquiry on either side, having heard the learned counsels on record, the Commission to decide on the point of the alleged rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP bank for issuance of statement of account in favour of Smt.Roopa wife of complainant and to decide on the relief sought for?.
6. It is not in dispute that, Complainant had SB account bearing no.30035331531 with OP bank. It is also not in dispute about debit entry of Rs.118/- to his account on 17.10.2017 towards the charges for issuance of copy of the statement of account. It has come in the enquiry, Smt.Roopa, to whom the statement of copy was issued is none other wife of Complainant. It is also found from 4 CC/189/2019 enqyiry she had filed a Cri.Mis.Petition/574/2016 on the file of 2nd Addl., Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking maintenance from complainant herein at Rs.50,000/- PM. The Complainant has placed copy of Cri.Mis.Petition/574/2016 for appreciation, wherein Smt.Roopa and Kumari Samyuktha, together filed petition U/s.125 of CrPC against one Dr.Mallanagouda R Patil alias Dr.Patil.M.R and sought direction against him to pay monthly maintenance amounting to Rs.50,000/-. It is found from contents of affidavit enclosed to the petition along with statement of objections submitted by the Complainant herein to the main petition, their marriage was solemnized on 09.02.2014 at Modern Hall near Vidyagiri, P.B.Road, Dharwad and they lead happy marriage life were blessed with a daughter Kumari Samyuktha. Smt.Roopa had alleged against her husband that for no reason he has deserted her w.e.f 03.07.2016. She has stated her husband is a Dentist by profession having a clinic of his own at Halasuru, Bengaluru and his earnings are more than Rs.2 lakhs per month. It has also come in the enquiry through documents marked as Ex- C5/Order sheet of Cri.Mis.Petition/574/2016 pending on the file of Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, wherein awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m to Smt.Roopa 5 CC/189/2019 and Rs.3,000/- p.m to her daughter Kumari Samyuktha by order dtd.18.11.2016.
7. In our view, since copy of statement of account was issued in favour of Smt.Roopa, his wife on 17.10.2017 and the date of interim order is prior to the order date. In other words statement of account obtained by his wife was not at all produced before the said Court. As it is found from the materials on record, the Family Court granted interim maintenance on the basis of other materials on record and not on the basis of pass book transactions of the Complainant. Further to be noted down at this stage, the Family court granted interim maintenance to the wife and daughter of complainant herein, pending final enquiry of Cri.Mis.Petition/574/2016 and the Family Court vest with right to call for any documents for just decisions to be passed in the said case, but facts remain, OP banker disclosed information which is prohibited U/s.45E of Reserve Bank of India 1934 is nothing but rendered deficiency of services. Learned Counsel for the complainant to find support submitted 'bank is liable for wrongful disclosure of customer's data.' On facts of the case on hand, Complainant had pointed out furnishing of statement of account in respect of SB a/c no.30035331531 is a violation of S.45E, since it is shown from the pass book entry Rs.118/- was debited but 6 CC/189/2019 facts remain to appreciate such issuance of statement of account to the wife of the account holder was a bonafide mistake, since OP bank immediately credited Rs.118/- and sent email as per Ex-C1 and as per Ex-C2 dtd.04.05.2018 informed the complainant 'one of their staff members has issued the duplicate statement of account inadvertently without any malafide intention. Mr.Sreenivasa and Ms.Jeevita from their branch have contacted him earlier and they did not suspect their bonafides. Further in the said letter OP bank expressed their sorry for the inconvenience caused to him and they have noted to exercise caution not to recur such incidence in future. Any how the mistake committed by the OP bank is a mistake and has to be held violation of Sec.45E of RBI Act 1934. In other words, disclosure of information as to the account particulars of Complainant, even to his wife Smt.Roopa amounts to violation of Sec.45E which is not appreciated. It is not that, the Family court calls such statement of account from OP bank to hold enquiry in Cri.Mis.Petition/574/2016, since Court is empower to call for such particulars from the bank, but here, on facts, OP bank supplied duplicate copy of statement of account to the wife of Complainant with whom Complainant is agitating a litigation in Cri.Mis.Petition/574/2016. No doubt, OP bank fairly admitted about issuance of duplicate statement of account 7 CC/189/2019 inadvertently and have expressed their sorry for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and also noted to exercise caution not to recur such incidences in future and further OP had also refunded Rs.118/- debited on 17.10.2017. Learned counsel for Complainant would submit, Complainant had sought for compensation of Rs.25 lakhs, since had borrowed some hand loan from his friends for the sake of his financial stress, and for treatment of his mother had deposited some amount in his bank account, which is disclosed to his wife is nothing but grave rendering deficiency in service, as a result had put to irreparable loss. In view of rival contentions, on this point, since the Hon'ble National Commission held, by an order dtd.28.05.2015, the bank is liable for failure to safeguard the customer's confidential data and confirmed the order of the State Commission, wherein awarded compensation of Rs.1 lakh for sufferings, Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. We have gone through the said decision, wherein could see the banker issued duplicate copy of pass book to a third party at the behest of her husband/Complainant, but facts herein are quite different, since OP bank issued statement of account or account particulars to the wife of the account holder inadvertently believing her words and the banker subsequently expressed their sorry for the 8 CC/189/2019 inconvenience and noted to exercise caution not to recur such incidences in future have refunded Rs.118/-. It is therefore, we are of the view to award Rs.25,000/- for the sufferings, Rs.5,000/- for rendering deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to meet the ends of justice to the account holder. Accordingly, ordered to allow the complaint in part and directed OP bank to pay Complainant Rs.35,000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.
8. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*NS*