State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Parkash vs 1. Standard Chartered Bank on 5 March, 2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal Case No. 218 of 2011 Date of institution: 23.08.2011 Date of decision : 5.3.2012 Om Parkash s/o late Sh.Mukand Lal, # 5729-A, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh-160014. . Appellant Versus 1. Standard Chartered Bank, SCO NO..137-138, Sector-9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. 2. Ravinder Sharma, # 707/1, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh-160 036. .. Respondents. Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 QUORUM : Justice Sham Sunder, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
Present: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Sh.Jatin Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Sh.Neeraj Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.2.
Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.7.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant(now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief , are that the complainant had taken House Building Loan of Rs.3,70,000/- on 12.5.2005 and Rs.1,30,000/- on 15.6.2005 respectively, from Opposite Party No.1. For the purpose of repayment of loan amount, Opposite Party No.1, had opened Home Saver A/c No.700-0-503005-7 of the complainant. At the time of opening of Home Saver Account, Opposite Party No.1, promised that the Code of Banks Commitment to Customers issued by the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India will be followed and adhered to, in all future dealings. It was stated that according to Clause 5 of the Code of Banks Commitment to Customers, Opposite Party No.1, was liable to treat all personal information of the complainant, as private and confidential. It was not required to reveal the information relating to the account of the complainant to any body else. It was further stated that in violation of Clause 5 of the Code of Banks Commitment to Customers, Opposite Party No.1, disclosed all his personal, private and confidential information to Opposite Party No.2 on 22.4.2008 & 11.1.2010 and provided him the bank statement from 5.1.2008 to 11.1.2010. The complainant wrote two letters to Opposite Party No.1 on 10.9.2010 and 8.10.2010, but to no effect. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 disclosed private and confidential information to Opposite Party No.2, without the knowledge of the complainant and without his confirmation and authority letter. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of Opposite Party No.1 was illegal, unethical, unjust and amounted to unfair trade practice. It was further stated that, on account of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, Opposite Party No.1, was deficient, in rendering service to the complainant. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed .
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, denied that it had disclosed the personal, private and confidential information of the complainant to Opposite Party No.2. It was denied that Opposite Party No.1 provided the bank statement to Opposite Party No.2. It was stated that the customers have the option to get hardcopy of statement by way of contacting the Banks Phone Banking Service, sending written letter, personal visit to branches etc. apart from periodic receipt of statement of account and such requests are honoured only post conducting necessary verification at the banks end. It was further stated that the bank strictly prohibits the act of disclosing or cascading any confidential information relating to a customer to third party. It was denied that Opposite Party No.1 was deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in his written version, took up the preliminary objection that the complainant was not a consumer qua him. It was also denied that Opposite Party No.2, received any information regarding the Home Saver Account of the complainant, from Opposite Party No.1. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that the complainant failed to prove, by any cogent and convincing evidence, that Opposite Party No.1, without his knowledge, disclosed his personal, private and confidential information with regard to his House Building Loan Account and violated its commitment, laid down by Banks Code and Standard Board of India.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/ complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, Opposite Party No.1 (now respondents No.1) by disclosing the information, with regard to the Home Saver Account of the complainant, by supplying statement of account to Opposite Party No.2, violated the terms of Clause 5 of the Code of Banks Commitment and, as such, was deficient, in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. Annexure C3 is a photocopy of the statement of account, relating to the Home Saver Account of the complainant, which according to him, was supplied by Opposite Party No.1, to Opposite Party No.2. It also bears the stamp in photo impression. Mere averment, in the complaint, to the effect, that such an information/statement was supplied by Opposite Party No.1, to Opposite Party No.2, does not prove the case of the complainant. No tangible evidence was produced by the complainant, to prove that Opposite Party No.1 supplied photocopy of the statement annexure C3 to Opposite Party No.2. Since the complainant failed to produce any tangible evidence, that this statement of account was provided to Opposite Party No.2, by Opposite Party No.1, the District Forum was right in holding, that the latter did not violate Clause 5 of the Banks Code. The District Forum was also right in holding that, under these circumstances, Opposite Party No.1 was neither deficient, in providing service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.
10. Coming to the case, against Opposite Party No.2, it may be stated here, that the complainant is not a consumer qua him. Opposite Party No.2 was neither the service provider, nor his services were hired by the complainant, for consideration to do something. It has been held above, that the complainant failed to prove through cogent and convincing evidence, as to how and, in which manner, annexure C3, copy of the Home Saver Account of the complainant was allegedly obtained by Opposite Party No.2. Since the complainant is not a consumer qua Opposite Party No.2, no complaint against him, under Section 12 of the Act was maintainable.
11. No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the parties.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission, and the same deserves to be upheld.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
Sd/-
Announced (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) March 5,2012 President Sd/-
(NEENA SANDHU) Member