State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepak Garg vs Branch Manager, Sbi on 12 January, 2017
SECOND ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.412 of 2016
Date of Institution:25.05.2016
Date of Reserve: 19.12.2016
Date of Decision : 12.01.2017
Deepak Garg son of Sh. Jaswant Rai Garg, Resident of House No.D-58,
Panchsheel Enclave, Bishanpura, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Zirakpur.
2. General Manager, State Bank of India, (Local Head Office), Sector
17, Chandigarh.
....Respondent/Opposite Parties
Appeal against order dated 29.04.2016
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, S.A.S.Nagar, (Mohali).
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
First Appeal No.412 of 2016 2
For the appellant : Ms. Payal Mehta, Advocate
For the respondent : Ex-parte
..............................................
JASBIR SINGH GILL, MEMBER:-
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') has filed this appeal against the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, S.A.S.Nagar, (Mohali) (hereinafter referred as "the District Forum") in consumer complaint no.203 of 2015, vide which the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") was allowed and the Ops were directed to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Act against respondents/Ops (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') on the averments that he opened bank account No.10333612922 with OP No.1 about 10 years ago and since then he had been making transactions through his bank account. The complainant had matrimonial dispute with his wife and both of them are living separately since November, 2013. The complainant came to know in February 2015 that the OPs issued his bank account statements for the extensive periods of January 2013 to December, 2013 and June 2014 to December, 2014 to his wife, without any authorization or request made by the complainant, which is violation of norms laid down in Master Circular on Customer Services issued by First Appeal No.412 of 2016 3 Reserve Bank of India. These statements were illegally used by his wife in a private dispute in the court at Hansi, District Hisar. The complainant immediately approached the bank officials but no satisfactory explanation was given to the complainant. The complainant also sent his complaint through e-mail to the DGM, Customer Services SBI. However, no action was taken against the defaulting officials nor any satisfactory explanation or compensation was offered to him. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions against the Ops to pay him Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OPs filed the written reply by raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The legally wedded wife of the complainant approached OP No.1 with some exigency of statement. Taking into right spirit, the OPs provided the statement upon furnishing of certain documents regarding the relationship of husband and wife. The wife of the complainant had not disclosed about pendency of any dispute between her and her husband and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved and the matter required full fledged for the proper adjudication of the same which cannot be decided in summary proceeding of the case, as such, the complainant be relegated to the Civil Courts. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant is having the grouse of an order passed by the Civil Courts at Hisar while deciding an interim application in which amount of maintenance was granted not only on the basis of statement of account but on the basis of salary certificate. The letters, emails or queries of the complainant were duly answered by the OPs with First Appeal No.412 of 2016 4 true and factual position. Other averments in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. Complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 letter, Ex.C-2 Complaint, Ex.C-3 statement of account, Ex.C-4 copy of petition, Ex.C-5 letter and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Shikha Mittal, Branch Manager, SBI, Zirakpur District Mohali alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 letter, Ex.OP-2 copy of Ration card, Ex.OP-3 copy of wedding card, Ex.OP-4 E-mail, Ex.OP-5 letter and closed the evidence.
5. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum as referred above.
6. Dissatisfied with the above order of the District Forum, complainant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The OPs were proceeded against ex-parte in the appeal as they did not appear despite notice.
8. Complainant filed the appeal on the ground that OP handed over the account statement of complainant account for the extensive period of January, 2013 to December 2013 and June 2014 to December 2014 to third party i.e. his wife without any authorization or acceptance made by the complainant. It was illegally used in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, District Hisar in private dispute. The said act of the respondent has resulted First Appeal No.412 of 2016 5 in breach of terms of confidentiality and violation of the norms laid down in master circle on customer service issued by Reserve Bank of India in respect of customer's privacy. The violation was admitted by the OP and has been affirmed by the District Forum in the impugned order. The compensation has been awarded but it is too inadequate. Present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation.
9. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant/complainant that the compensation allowed by the District Forum is inadequate and requested for enhancement of compensation as deficiency in service is admitted and upheld by the District Forum. Whereas, counsel for the OP has argued that no doubt that statement of account of complainant was given by the Ops to his wife under bonafide belief being wife of the complainant and at that time they were not in knowledge and nothing was brought to the notice of the OPs by the wife of the complainant that it is to be used in litigation between them. On account of bonafide mistake, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by the District Forum, which is very adequate compensation, therefore, no further compensation be enhanced.
10. We have considered the contentions as raised by the counsel for the parties. The core question is how the compensation was assessed by the Judicial Court? Whether it was assessed only on the basis of statement of account or on the basis of salary certificate of the complainant. Copy of order dated 19.02.2015 passed in maintenance case has been placed on record. The salary of the complainant was Rs.85,000/- per month and was considered at the time of passing this order and from the First Appeal No.412 of 2016 6 statement of account it was clear that complainant had income from other heads also and accordingly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month was fixed. In maintenance cases approximately one third or one fourth of the income is awarded as a maintenance allowance and for that salary of the complainant is Rs.85,000/- per month was sufficient to award such a maintenance. Therefore, we cannot say that the maintenance amount to the wife of the complainant was fixed only on the basis of statement of account given to the wife of the complainant by Ops. Moreover, it was orally stated in the appeal that the District Judge has decreased the amount of maintenance from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. It is only interim order and final order will be passed by the Court after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties, which is still to be led by the parties before the Judicial Court. Therefore, it is again reiterated that it was not only the statement of account of the complainant which was the basis to determine the maintenance but other factors were also considered by the Court.
11. When any amount of compensation is determined then deficiency in service on the part of the OP is to be considered and compensation should be inconsonance with the deficiency in service committed by the Ops. As stated above the maintenance order passed is just an interim order and final order is still to be passed on the basis of evidence led by the parties. For the lapse on the part of the Ops to give the copy of statement of account of the complainant to his wife, in our opinion the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the District Forum is quite sufficient we does not see any circumstances under which amount of compensation should be enhanced.
First Appeal No.412 of 2016 7
12. In view of the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Forum is justified and we affirm the same. We do not see any merit in the appeal and is accordingly, dismissed.
13. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.12.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER January 12, 2017.
(rs)