State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Saraswathi R vs State Bank Of Mysore on 16 June, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Complaint Case No. CC/349/2014 ( Date of Filing : 24 Dec 2014 ) 1. Saraswathi R Age:59 years, R/o 578, II block, I cross, III main, R T Nagar, Bangalore-560032 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. State Bank of Mysore H.O:K.G.Road, Bangalore-560009, Rep by its Chairman Ms.Arundathi Bhattacharya, State Bank bhavan, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 2. The Managing Director State Bank of Mysore, H.O: K.G.Road, Bangalore-560009. 3. Dy.Gen.Manager State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore Zone-I, BKG Complex, Avenue Road, Bangalore-560009. 4. The Branch Manager State Bank of Mysore, Vyalikaval Branch, Vyalikaval, Bangalore-560003. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 16 Jun 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 349/2014 Smt. R. Saraswathi, Age : 59 years, R/o : 578, 2nd Block, 1st Cross, 3rd Main, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore 560 032. (By Smt. R. Jyothi Bhat) ....... Complainant/s V/s 1. State Bank of Mysore, H.O.: K.G. Road, Bangalore 560 009, Represented by its Chairman, Ms. Arundathi Bhattacharya, (In her capacity as the Chairman of State Bank of Mysore), State Bank Bhavan, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 021. ..... Opposite Party/s 2. The Managing Director, State Bank of Mysore, H.O.: K.G. Road, Bangalore 560 009. 3. Dy. Gen. Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore Zone - I, BKG Complex, Avenue Road, Bangalore 560 009. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Vyalikaval Branch, Vyalikaval, Bangalore 560 003. (By Sri P.L. vijay Kumar) ORDER
BY SMT.SUNITA.C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant praying for a direction against the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- for deficiency in service with interest.
2. The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that she has been operating the Savings Bank Account bearing No.54033862895 jointly with her deceased father Late Sri H.T. Bhat from the time when the Opposite Party opened its branch at Vyalikaval, Bangalore. The said account had a survivorship clause. The said account was being predominantly being operated by the complainant with the deceased father having no role whatsoever in the transactions. The complainant submits that her father passed away in the year 2008. Pursuant to the death of the father, the complainant based on the survivorship clause, continued to operate the said account in her individual capacity. Further, none of her siblings had been nominated to take the place of the father. The fact that the said account was a joint account was within the knowledge of the bank. The complainant further submits that her father was made the joint account holder only for the purpose of convenience and not for any other specific reason. Pursuant to the death of the father, the complainant requested the bank to delete the name of the father from the said account, accordingly, the bank heeded to request made by the complainant and deleted the name of her father.
3. The complainant further submits that subsequent to her father's death, the elder brother of the complainant Mr. T. Rama Bhat filed a partition suit against the complainant seeking for a share in the self-acquired property of the deceased father. The said Partition Suit is pending before the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Bangalore and is number as O.S. No.4760/2012. The complainant is Defendant No.2 in the said suit. The said Sri T. Rama Bhat during the pendency of the suit, approached Opposite Party No.1 at their Vyalikaval Branch and filed an application dt.01.06.2013 under Right to Information Act, seeking for personal details of the complainant's Savings Bank Account which was hitherto being held by her with her father. The complainant submits that by and under a letter dt.04.06.2013, the complainant explicitly warned the Opposite Parties not to honour any application including an application under RTI, on the grounds that the said T. Rama Bhat had filed a suit and was not a legal heir to the said account. She also brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties that the said account was a joint account and that she was operating the account based on the survivorship clause.
4. However to the shock and surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Parties without verifying the true status of the account asked her to obtain an order from the jurisdictional court to prevent the bank from revealing the details. The complainant further submits that the bank officials provided the details of the above mentioned Savings Bank Account including but not limited to the statement of accounts to T. Rama Bhat without any queries/orders/ verification of the purpose for which the details were being obtained for. It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties have disregarded the guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank of India in its Master circular dt:01.07.2013 with respect to operation of accounts with 'survivorship clause' and also the customer confidentiality obligations to be exercised by the Opposite Parties. The complainant submits that the Opposite Parties have already revealed personal information to T.Rama Bhat, thereby abetting and colluding with him to obtain private information even after it was brought to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties that there is a partition suit pending before the Hon'ble City Civil Court.
5. The complainant further submits that the Opposite Parties hold the accounts of its customers in fiduciary capacity and cannot in law disclose the information regarding accounts maintained by its customers with it to any third party. The Opposite Parties by disclosing details of balance maintained by the complainant in her Savings Bank Account No.54033862895 with the Bank to a third party, Mr. T. Rama Bhat has breached its duty to the client and has caused immense harm and damage to the interest of the complainant. The complainant submits that the Opposite Parties disclosed the details without confirming whether the said Mr. T. Rama Bhat is actually a legal heir to the said account and proceeded to reveal the particulars of the Savings Bank Account even after being specifically stopped from revealing the details and also after being informed that there is a case pending before the Hon'ble City Civil Court. Further the complainant submits that the Opposite Parties have given the statement of accounts to the said Sri T. Rama Bhat, which again is a violation of banking practice and procedure. The complainant issued a notice dt.06.11.2013 to the Opposite Parties. The response of the Opposite Parties to the said notice is untenable and unacceptable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. After service of notice, one Mr. P.L. Vijay Kumar, advocate filed vakalath for Opposite Party No.4 along with version. Inspite of service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 are absent, hence, placed exparte. On 16.03.2016, advocate for Opposite Party No.4 submitted that he has filed vakalath for all the Opposite Parties and the same was permitted to represent for all, but, not filed version and also not submitted that the version of Opposite Party No.4 may be considered as version of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, version of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 taken as not filed on 23.06.2016. However, on perusal of the version filed by the Opposite Party No.4 wherein Opposite Party No.4 in the heading has mentioned as objections on behalf of respondents/Opposite Parties.
7. The Opposite Party No.4 in the version has contended that the complaint is with respect to alleged deficiency in service arising out of information provided under Right to Information Act. As such this Commission does not have the functional jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter at controversy. As such the complaint deserves to be dismissed without going into the merits of the complaint. It is further contended that the Opposite Party bank has nothing to do with the litigation pending between the complainant and her brother or any other person. A legal heir of the deceased account holder is entitled to seek information with respect to the accounts maintained with bank. The Opposite Party bank is bound to furnish the information particularly when the information is sought under RTI Act. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.C1 to C12. Inspite of sufficient opportunities provided, the Opposite Party has not filed affidavit evidence and also not marked any documents. Both parties have not submitted their arguments inspite of sufficient time granted to them.
9. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(i) Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed? (ii) What order? 10. The findings to the above points are; (i) Affirmative (ii) As per final order REASONS
11. Perused the contents of the complainant, objections filed by the Opposite Parties, evidence affidavit of complainant, we noticed that the Opposite Parties have admitted the averments made in the complaint that the complainant was maintaining the joint SB Account bearing No.54033862895 along with her father Late Sri H.T. Bhat which was to be operated by either one of them or by survivor. The Opposite Party also admitted that one Sri T. Rama Bhat, S/o Sri Late H.T. Bhat sought details of account in question from Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Opposite Party Bank under RTI Act, 2005 by an application dt.01.06.2013 along with Death Certificate of Late Sri H.T.Bhat and Pan Card in the capacity of the legal heir of the deceased account holder and CPIO of Opposite Party Bank furnished the information relating to the SB Account of the deceased.
12. The allegation of the complainant is that the complainant and her father had opted Survivorship Clause "either or survivor" mode of operation and after her father's demise, the complainant requested the bank to delete the name of the father from the said SB Account. Accordingly, the bank had deleted the name of her father and nature of her SB Account had been changed from joint account to individual account. Subsequently the bank officials provided the details of the account and statement of account to Mr. T. Rama Bhat without any verification which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank. The Opposite Party Bank contended that the information provided by the bank under RTI Act and as per Sec.21 of RTI Act, 2005, no suit prosecution/other legal proceedings shall lie against the CPIO for which is done on good faith. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Moreover, the said account is joint account with mandate as "either or survivor" for the purpose of operation of account. Hence, the said does not make the complainant's own account to the exclusion of the other account holder. Moreover, the legal heir is entitled to seek information with respect to the account maintained with the bank and when Mr. T. Rama Bhat sought information under RTI Act, the bank is bound to furnish the details and T.Rama Bhat is not a third party and he is the legal heir of the deceased.
13. Perused the documents produced by the complainant. It is noticed that the complainant is maintaining joint SB Account along with her father and after her father's death, the joint account changed into an individual account which is not in dispute. As per the survivorship rule, if you opened joint bank account and one person dies, the surviving owner has the right to take over the account and the assets are transferred to the surviving account holder. It is also true that the legal heir of the deceased person is the son who will get all the properties including bank account funds etc. and as the legal heir T.Rama Bhat is every right to cheque about the status of his father's account. Hence, on the application under RTI Act, the bank has provided the details to him. However, after the death of complainant's father, the account changed into individual name of the complainant. Then to provide the details of the complainant's account without complainant's consent which is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party bank. Moroever, the complainant has issued a letter dt.04.07.2013 to the Opposite Party bank not to honour any application and not to provide account details to another person, but, the Opposite Party has provided the details. The information sought for cannot be supplied under the provisions of the Act, the Opposite Party would reject the application and shall inform the applicant the reasons for such rejection. Moreover the Opposite Party bank has not lead evidence and without affidavit evidence, there is no weightage to the contention of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party bank failed to prove the contention by lack of evidence. Hence, in our opinion there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party bank. Considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party bank. Hence, the following;
O R D E R The complaint is allowed.
The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. In default, the said amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.
Send a copy of this order to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER