Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/358/2020

Pardeep Kumar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Regional Corporate office - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Gupta & Mayank Gupta

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	358 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	10.08.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	12.04.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Pardeep Kumar Jain s/o Sh.Ram Richhpal Jain, R/o Flat No.603, GHS-69, Sector 20, Panchkula.

            …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  HDFC Bank, Regional Corporate Office, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Regional/Circle Head

2]  HDFC Bank (Branch), SCF-17, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

For Complainant : Sh.Vinod Gupta, Counsel of complainant

For OP(s)       : Sh.A.P.S.Sehgal, Counsel of OPs (Defence of       

   OPs struck off.)

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        The case of the complainant precisely is that he opened a Saving Bank Account No.01761130002924 with OP No.2 Bank on 10.8.2011 and the same is still active.  It is stated that earlier this was salary account of the complainant.  It is stated that someone has procured his account statement or it has been given by the employee of the OP Bank, which caused loss to the complainant. It is submitted that the Statement of account of complainant so procured by someone from the OP Bank for the period from 1.1.2018 to 27.5.2019, was produced in Court as evidence due to which heavy loss has been caused to the complainant and his family.  The complainant submitted written complaint in this regard with OP Bank through email on 24.9.2019 and asked them to take appropriate action against the erring employee and to give the name of the employee and authorization/consent form submitted to the Bank (Ann.C-2 & C-3) followed by a reminder on 3.11.2019 (Ann.C-6) but no action was taken by the Bank.  It is pleaded that the matter was also taken before Banking Ombudsman, who issued directions to the OP Bank on 30.1.2020 (Ann.c-8), but the OP Bank kept on replying that the matter is under review at their end.  It is also pleaded that account details are not to be shared by the Bank even to the relative of account holder unless there is an authorization letter.

        It is submitted that the account statement taken from the account of the complainant has been used in a court of law at Singapore Family Court and the same has been attached as a part of the defence pleadings by Sh.Rajiv Garg, who has taken these account statements from the account of complainant and Aditi Jain, daughter of the complainant, as a result, it caused huge financial loss while granting the permanent & monthly alimony almost to the tune of Rs.2 Crore.  It is also submitted that the account statement which has been unauthorizedly & illegally leaked by the OP Bank official to a third party which was further produced in the Court of Singapore in a private dispute pending against the daughter (Aditi Jain) of the complaint, in violation of the code of the bank’s commitment towards the customer which provide that all personal information of the client would be kept private and confidential.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred.

 

2]      The defence of OPs No.1 & 2 was struck off vide order dated 20.1.2022 as they failed to file written version within the stipulated time.

 

3]      Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

5]      The main grouse of the complainant is that the OP Bank or its employee unauthorizedly, without his consent, has supplied his Account Statement for the period from 1.1.2018 to 27.5.2019 to third party, which was attached as part of defence in a Family Court at Singapore and as a result thereof, he suffered financial loss while granting alimony to the tune of Rs.2 Crore.

 

6]      The ld.Counsel for the OPs, at the time of arguments, while denying the supply of alleged Account Statement of complainant to any third party, stated that Account Statement provided by the Bank always bear Stamp & signatures of Officer of Bank, which is not there in the present case. It is also argued that the Account Statement might have been obtained Online through Net Banking either by the complainant or his known person having access to his login & password. It is denied by ld.Counsel for OPs that the alleged account statement has been supplied by the OP Bank.

 

7]      Taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, documents on record and peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the matter in question needs through probe and elaborate evidence to prove the same, which includes examination & cross-examination of witnesses of both the parties at length and being summary nature of proceedings before this Commission under The Consumer Protection Act, so we refrain to decide the same. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  However, the complainant shall be at liberty to resort to any other remedy, available under law.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12^th April, 2023                                                              Sd/-  

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER