These cross appeals have been filed against the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No.323 of 2015. 2. Brief facts leading to these two appeals are that appellant in FA No.1036 of 2016 is the original complainant who filed a complaint against the opposite parties/appellants in FA No.1079 of 2016 alleging that OPNo.4 gave account statements relating to his bank accounts maintained by OP No.1 and OP No.2. OP No.1 is the Chief Manager Union Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch and OP No.2 is Chief Manager, Union Bank of India Sahaspur Branch whereas OP No.4 is Chief Manager Union Bank of India Rudrapur Branch. It was alleged by the complainant that Rudrapur Branch issued statements of his bank accounts to a third party which utilised the same for filing a complaint petition before the Income tax authorities and Income Tax authorities started the investigation against the complainant which led to unnecessary harassment and mental agony of the complainant. The State Commission allowed complaint against OP No.4 by awarding a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment along with cost of litigation as Rs.50,000/- and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission. The complaint against other OPs was dismissed. 3. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant stated that the bank statements of both the accounts from 1/04/12 to 30/04/2012 have been given on 24/07/2012 and statements from 27/04/2013 to 16/11/2013 and 27/01/2014 to 15/04/2014 have been given later on and are printed on bank stationery. These account statements have been misused by a third party for filing a Tax Evasion Petition against the complainant and his family members/relatives with allegations of misappropriate assets in Income Tax Department at Patiala for starting of income tax proceedings for scrutiny by DDIT/ADIT/DGIT (Investigation Punjab) and also by the Assessing Officers Ghaziabad since Feb 2013 onwards and which has been concluded with no demand. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant further stated that his complaint is for “code of Bank’s Commitments to Customers” which provides that all personal information of the clients should be kept as private and confidential and therefore, the bank have committed offence under Section 43, 66 and 72 of Information Technologies Act read with regulation with office order of Ministry of Communications & Information Technology 24-August, 2011. The Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India prescribes that no information of a customer can be supplied to any third party, barring some exceptional circumstances, which did not exist here. The Rudrapur Branch has been extremely negligent in protecting the confidential information of customers from other branches, as in regard to the complainant’s transaction statement, causing him immense prejudice, mental stress, trauma and distress and increasing his financial liability. Chandigarh and Sahaspur (Doon) branches of Bank are also a necessary party, they should have taken steps to protect the data of their client, otherwise in CBS system it is easily possible to get data at any remote computer and to hand it over to third person for some reward in terms of cash or goods. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that as regard the quantum of compensation, it must be realized that in cases of this type of nature, the amount of compensation has to include element of fine, and while fixing the amount, it has to be borne in mind, that the amount should be such, so as to deter other financial organizations from any such performance, and to be more vigilant and watchful. All these considerations must be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party Bank stated that an officer of the appellant bank, Mr. Sujit Pangtey bearing PF No.575123, who is presently posted in District Bageshwar, Uttarakhand has confirmed that he issued that page of the statement of account bearing his PF number to the respondent himself who had come to the branch. He issued it on his request after identifying him through the photograph in the records of the bank. An affidavit to this effect signed by the said officer employee of the appellant has been filed. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the appellants, who have not provided any confidential information pertaining to the respondent to any third party. The appellants have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and have not indulged into any unfair trade practice. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party Bank further stated that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since as per the respondent’s own version no part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh. As per respondent’s complaint, the alleged leakage, if any, took place in Rudrapur, Uttrakhand. Further, the State Commission also fixed the liability on Rudrapur (Udham Singh Nagar) Branch of the appellant bank which lay outside its own jurisdiction, while absolving all other parties. The State Commission has failed to appreciate that complex allegations of forgery and fabrication of the relevant documents involving disputed questions of fact which required the parties to lead cogent evidence before a competent Civil Court, were raised by the respondent and that the same could not have been dealt with in the summary procedure by the State Commission. 10. It has also been contended that the State Commission has further failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent made wild allegations against the appellant bank about alleged wrong supply of copies of the accounts, which bore glaring discrepancies and could not be relied upon. A subsequent enquiry with the said officer whose number is appended on the statement of account reveal that the same had been supplied by him to the complainant himself after identifying him through the photographs on record of the bank. The State Commission has failed to appreciate that the respondents claim that he had never visited the Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar Branch office of the appellant bank on 24.7.2012 was never substantiated by him, even though the burden lay heavily upon him, when admittedly the complainant had worked as a Plant Head in an MNC at Rudrapur from the year 2009 till December, 2012. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party bank has further stated that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that there is no mandatory requirement of obtaining an application in writing from the customer for issuance of statement of account and further overlooked the fact that the fee chargeable for the same is not mandatory and is at the option of the branch and in practice is mostly waived off by the Branch Manager/Officers as a matter of goodwill and therefore, merely due to absence of such a request in writing with the bank or non-debit of fee from the account of respondent, a negative inference fixing the liability upon the bank cannot be reasonably drawn. 12. It was further argued that the State Commission has not appreciated that the alleged income tax evasion complaint against the complainant, fixation of tax penalty against him by the tax authorities and the use of the said documents in civil and criminal proceedings including proceedings for prosecution for taking bribe etc. or criminal case for defamation were all mere allegations as no such order of the Income Tax Department levying penalty for tax evasion or any criminal or civil court holding him liable for taking bribe for unlawful gratification were ever produced or shown by him and in absence of any such proof, the complaint case could not be believed as gospel truth. 13. Learned counsel stated that the State Commission have erred in ignoring the fact that the Income Tax Authorities investigating the tax evasion by any person and the criminal and civil courts where any prosecution or case is launched have ample power under the respective laws to call for the records of the bank including the statements of account or copies of any other documents from the bank and no prejudice could be caused to the complainant. 14. Learned counsel further stated that the State Commission had failed to appreciate that if the statement of account or the copy of the deposit slip were part of the evidence of commission of a tax evasion and the act of taking bribe by the respondent that the larger public interest required that the same should have been reported to the respective authorities by any dutiful citizen of the country. 15. Learned counsel argued that the State Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that it is admitted case of the complainant himself that he was working in Rudrapur during 2009 to Dec. 2012 and the said statement of account had been given on 24.7.2012 when he was admittedly working at Rudrapur and must have been operating the account there. 16. The learned counsel further argued that the State Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant had not proved any loss in the matter and therefore was not entitled to any compensation. 17. I have given a careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. In respect of the technical issue relating to territorial jurisdiction it is seen that the State Commission has exhaustively covered and decided this issue in the impugned order dated 12.07.2016. I agree with the finding of the State Commission that because the account statement of the account held by the Chandigarh Branch of opposite party bank was also allegedly given to a third party, the cause of action arose partly at Chandigarh also. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot find favour in the present appeal. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for the bank is that the case involves lot of documentary and oral evidence to pin point the actual negligence and guilt, hence the matter should have been sent to the civil court as the same cannot be decided in the summary manner by a consumer forum. The State Commission has given a finding that the complaint was worthy of being decided without any voluminous evidence and therefore, this contention has also been rejected by the State Commission. I agree with the decision of the State Commission as the same is supported by the following judgments of this Commission:- (1) Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Vs. Dena Bank, III (2016) CPJ 615 (NC). It has been observed that: “25. In Haryana Gramin Bank (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly held that the petitioner bank was vicariously liable for the wrong doings of its officials/ employees which resulted in monetary loss to the respondent. In Bihar Cooperative Development (supra), the Apex Court held that if the signature on the cheque is not genuine, there is no mandate on the bank to pay and the question of any negligence on the part of the customer such as leaving the cheque book carelessly would afford no defence to the bank. The bank was found to be negligent in not ascertaining whether the signature on the cheque in question was genuine and the circumstances attending the encashment of the cheque proved that the bank was negligent and some of its officers fraudulent right from the beginning. Upholding the order decreeing the suit against the bank, it was observed that fraud could only be perpetrated because of the complicity of the employees of the bank… In Sheo Kumar Sharma (supra), it was contended on behalf of the bank that the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act being summary in nature, the subject disputes could not be adjudicated merely on evidence by affidavit. It was submitted that the charge of forging and cheating has to be proved by leading voluminous evidence which would include cross examination of the experts who had examined the relevant documents and that is beyond the scope of the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The contention however was rejected by this Commission, noticing that the factum of issue of cheque book in the case before it was not in dispute and therefore, deficiency in rendering services to the customer was writ large”. (2) First Appeal No.106 of 2014, The Tax Publisher Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, UCO Bank & Anr. It has been held that:- “10. The issue whether or not complicated questions of facts can be decided in summary proceedings, as visualized under the Act, vis-à-vis Civil Court, came up for consideration before a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra). Referring to the statutory provisions, prescribing the procedure for disposal of the Complaint filed under the Act, the Court rejected the contention that complicated questions of fact cannot be decided in summary proceedings, observing thus:- “In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that the Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the civil court. For the trial to be just and reasonable, long-drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that the legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be a totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided.” 12. In CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted the same principle as enunciated in Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) to determine the question whether adjudication on the issue arising in the Complaint require a detailed and complicated investigation of facts, incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. It was observed that the decisive test is not the complicated nature of the questions of fact and law arising for decision – the anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a Forum under the Act is to be determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry i.e. by doing away with the need of detailed and complicated method of recording evidence.
13. It is thus, well settled that the procedure prescribed under the Act for disposal of the Complaint is adequate to decide cases involving complicated questions of the law and fact as well albeit, the issues which, in the opinion of a Consumer Fora, cannot be decided without lengthy evidence, not envisioned under Section 13 of the Act.” 18. Based on the above view taken by this Commission in Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Vs. Dena Bank (supra) and First Appeal No.106 of 2014, The Fax Publisher Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, UCO bank & Anr. (supra), I agree with the decision of the State Commission on this issue that the matter has rightly been decided by the State Commission. There was no need to dismiss the complaint on this ground with the direction to file a complaint before civil court. | |
19. Coming to the merits, though the bank has tried to establish that the statement dated 12.7.2012 was issued to the complainant himself by the concerned officer of the bank after verifying his photograph, no proof has been filed in this regard as neither the bank has taken any application for issuing the statement nor the complainant has been charged for the same as per the fees payable in this regard. Moreover, the position in respect of other statements from 27.04.2013 to 16.11.2013 and 27.01.2014 to 15.04.2014 has not been clarified by the bank. Furthermore no explanation has been given by the bank for giving copies of the deposit slips. The bank has also not obtained any receipt from the person to whom the statements were given otherwise this could have clarified the position. The State Commission has considered all these aspects and has reached to the conclusion that there was a deficiency on the part of OP No.4 that is the Rudrapur branch of the Union Bank of India. Though the complainant in his appeal has raised the issue that other OPs were also deficient in their service as they did not initiate any action when a complaint was lodged with them for issuance of statements to third party by another branch of the bank. In this regard, I agree with the findings of the State Commission that there is no direct deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and OP No.2 and therefore, complaint was rightly dismissed against these opposite parties. 20. Now coming to the question of compensation for the deficiency of OP No.4, it is seen that the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment to the complainant along with cost of litigation as Rs.50,000/- apart from ordering Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Legal Aid account of the State Commission. It is seen that the complainant has come to know of issuance of these statements by the Rudrapur branch of the bank through the investigation which was started by the Income Tax authorities and the name of the complainant to the income tax authorities was not disclosed to the complainant who filed the consumer complaint. Though it has been alleged by the complainant that the statements were issued to a third party, the complainant has not been able to pinpoint the name of the third party to whom the bank issued the statements. If the person who filed complaint petition before the income tax authorities against the complainant had given only the details of the bank accounts of the complainant Income Tax authorities would have got the details of these bank statements of accounts from the bank itself. As this is not the case of the opposite party No.4, and the statements issued bear the number of the issuing branch as the Rudrapur branch there is no doubt that the OP No.4 issued these statements to a third party. The question is when the complainant is not able to clearly establish as to which third party received the statements from the bank and the statements have been used by the Income Tax Authorities to investigate the matter against the complainant in this situation it is to be examined whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the bank. 21. So far as the contention of the appellant in respect of the compensation for violation of the provisions of Information Technologies Act is concerned, it is seen that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to the provisions of other laws for the time being inforce as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, it is clear that the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are independent proceedings wherein the compensation is awarded by the forum under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein the forum has to assess the loss and injury suffered by the complainant by negligence of the opposite party. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the appellant that compensation has not been granted for violation of certain provisions of the Information Technologies Act. 22. As the Income Tax Department can proceed with any enquiry against any tax payer and the tax payer has to defend his case on its own the complainant is also not entitled to any compensation for defending his case before the income tax authorities. The complainant has also admitted that no demand was finally raised against him in the enquiry by the Income Tax Department though no documents have been filed in respect of the orders issued by the Income Tax Department. In these circumstances, the complainant has not suffered any loss because of statements of his bank accounts having been issued. Moreover, the statements have not been used by anybody to get any financial gain out of these statements. It is also not sure whether the income tax authorities proceeded against the complainant only on the basis of these account statements. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as awarded by the State Commission, however, as the deficiency of OP No.4 is established and the complainant has brought this deficiency on the fore by bringing a complaint against all the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to litigation charges as awarded by the State Commission and OP No.4 is liable to deposit cost of Rs.50,000/- with the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission as ordered by the State Commission. 23. Based on the above discussion, the appeal filed by the opposite party Bank being FA No.1079 of 2016 is partly allowed and order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that award of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid by the OP No.4 is set aside and the remaining order of the State Commission in respect of the cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as well as in respect of the order relating to deposit of Rs.50,000/- in the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission is maintained. In the light of the order partly allowing the appeal filed by the bank the appeal filed by the complainant being FA No.1036 of 2016 is dismissed. |
