CC No.1473.2015

Filed on 10.08.2015

Disposed on 19.06.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF JUNE 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1473/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

PRESENT:

    Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                          MEMBER

                                            V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 10.08.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the damages, to pay a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- as compensation for the hardship and mental agony and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that he has been opened SB Account with the Opposite Party Bank in the year 2008 vide SB Account No.01/02651.  The Complainant is a prompt customer and made in good touch with the Opposite Party and using savings account as a customer.  The Complainant made several transactions with the Opposite Party. The Complainant got married one K.Madhusoodanam and they lived quite some time happily.  There was family dispute between them accordingly the Complainant has filed a petition before the Hon’ble VI Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court Court at Bangalore under the provision of Domestic Violation Act.  The said case is still pending for consideration.  The Complainant never authorized the Opposite Party Bank to furnish any account details to anybody, even Complainant expressly or impliedly given permission to the Opposite Party has not duty bound to issue or communicate with the third parties to the personal details of its customers.  It is against to the Banking Practicing.  The Opposite Party has colluded with the unknown third parties or the husband of the Complainant and issued Bank Statement of the Complainant to them.  The same was produced by the husband of the Complainant to the Hon’ble VI Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court.  It is contended by the husband of the Complainant before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court that, certain Fixed Deposits ae made by him and certain cash has been credited by him to the Complainant account during the period of the 2010 and 2011.  The said statements are totally irrelevant and the same was the savings made by the Complainant herself.  Any how the Complainant is seriously contending the said matter.  In fact the alleged transaction relied upon of the husband of the Complainant is totally self-acquired money of the Complainant.   The Complainant is demonstrating the same before the Hon’ble VI Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court and had assumption that certainly Complainant would be succeed in that case. The Complainant never authorized the Opposite Party Bank issue any personal details to anybody.  This is against to the Banking principles.  It is the duty of the Opposite Party bank to maintain the secret of the customer Bank details unless they directed by the competent court or any other legal or statutory bodies.   The Opposite Party has violated the principle of banking rules and thereby the Complainant has caused severe mental agony and truma and the illegal act of the Opposite Party has the Complainant to extreme hardship.   The act of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant have issued a complaint to that effect to the Opposite Party on 12.05.2015 to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party Bank issued a letter dt.18.06.2015 and assured that, they would take action.  The Complainant got issued legal notice dt.02.07.2015 the same was served the Opposite Party on 09.07.2015.  The Opposite Party to escape the liability issued a vague and untenable reply on 18.07.2015.  The damages that the Complainant has suffered are immeasurable, she quantified the same at Rs.2,00,000/-.  Hence this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party put their appearance through their counsel and filed his version, in the version pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts.  The complaint is barred by time.  The matter involved is of complicated Civil nature which requires full pledged details enquiry and the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum.  It is not within the knowledge of the Opposite Party that there was family dispute between Complainant and her husband Sri.K.Madhusoodanam and in that regard the Complainant has filed Petition before the VI M.M.T.C.Court, Bangalore under Provisions of Domestic Violence Act.  The Opposite Party Bank has not issued Bank Statement of the Complainant to any 3^rd party.  It is not within the knowledge of the Opposite Party that the Complainant husband produced the Bank Statement before the Hon’ble VI M.M.T.C Court and he contended before the said Court that he made certain Fixed Deposits and credited certain cash to the Complainant’s Account during the period 2010 an 2011.    Even according to the Complainant the Statement is produced before Court of law as evidence and the same is subject to proof and relevancy of act and the documents produced before the Court cannot be considered as prejudicial to one’s interest or illegal.  It is false to state that the Opposite Party has violated the Principles of Banking Rules and thereby the Complainant suffered severe mental agony and trauma.  The Opposite Party has not committed any illegal acts or there is no deficiency in service on its part.  Though certain Documents like Annual Returns of Assets, Investments, I.T.Returns etc., were earlier declared as private/personal or third party information, as far as spouses are concerned they are not private or personal or third party information between them, in the context of martial disputes especially for maintenance purposes”.   The grievance of the Complainant in this case is that her husband has obtained Statement of Account of the Complainant S.B.Account and he produced the same in a maintenance Application filed by her.  In view of the settled position of law in the said Prashansa Sharma V/s Delhi Transco Limited, the information obtained by the spouse is not personal or third party information and on this count alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed has not maintainable.   Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.     
4. The Complainant, Smt.Srinisha has been filed her affidavit by way of evidence and closed her side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party, the affidavit of Sri.A.D.Ramachandra Bhat has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Negative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:- As looking into the allegations made in the complaint and also the version filed by the Opposite Party, it is not in dispute that the Complainant having SB Account with the Opposite Party Bank bearing SB Account No.01/02651. Further in support of her evidence, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the Account Statement.  By looking into this document, it reveals that the Complainant having SB Account with the Opposite Party Bank bearing SB Account No.01/02651, therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant is having S.B.Account with the Opposite Party Bank bearing No.01/02651.  

8. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant never Authorized the Opposite Party Bank issue any personal details to anybody.  This is against to the Banking principles.  It is the duty of the Opposite Party bank to maintain the secret of the customer Bank details unless they directed by the competent court or any other legal or statutory bodies.  The Opposite Party by violated the principle of banking rules issued statement details of the Complainant to the 3^rd party.  It causes extreme hardship, the act of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.  To substantiate this, the Complainant in her sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the certified copy of the Statement of Account of the Complainant which was marked as EX.D1 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court and also the Complainant produced the copy of the complaint lodged by her with the Manager of the Opposite Party-Bank, it is dt.12.05.2015 in her complaint she clearly narrated she filed a suit against her husband K.Madhusoodan before Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court VI CMis-198/2013.  At the time of evidence on 27.04.2015 Opposite side Advocate produced her Bank Statement without her consent how can he taken her confidential statement and produced before the Court.  For that issue wants to hold an enquiry and also produced the letter addressed by the Assistant General Manager of the Opposite Party-Bank dt.18.06.2015.  By looking into this document, the Opposite Party-Bank cancelled the receipt of the complaint of the Complainant and informing the Complainant that they have taken up the issue with concerned authority for further action.

9. The defence of the Opposite Party-Bank is that though certain documents like Annual Returns of Assets, Investments, I.T.Returns etc., were earlier declared as private/personal or third party information, as far as spouses are concerned they are not private or personal or third party information between them, in the context of martial disputes especially for maintenance purposes”.   The grievance of the Complainant in this case is that her husband has obtained Statement of Account of the Complainant S.B.Account and he produced the same in a maintenance Application filed by her.  The spouse is not personal or third party information.  In support of this defence, Sri.A.D.Ramchandra Bhat, Senior Manager of the Opposite Party Bank, in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same.  Now the question is whether any information given by the Opposite Party-Bank to the spouse amounts to information given to the 3^rd party. 

10. In support of this, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party argued that it is settled principle of law any information given to the spouse is not required consent or permission by the others spouse and do not amounts to furnishing the information to the 3^rd party.  In support of his argument, he relied upon a decision in Prashansa Sharma V/s Delhi Transco Limited., 2015 SCC online CIC 258.  On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that the Complainant had S.B.Account with the Opposite Party-Bank bearing No.01/02651, even though the Complainant has not given consent to anybody and the Complainant had a family dispute, due to that she filed a case before VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court and Domestic Violation act.  In support of this defence taken by the Complainant’s husband, he produced the S.B Account Statement of the Complainant before the Court, even though the Complainant never give consent to furnish the information to the Opposite Party-Bank.  The Opposite Party-Bank issued the Statement and information of the S.B.Account of the Complainant that clearly violates the Principle of Banking Rules, thus it causes mental agony and truma hardship to the Complainant, thereby it amounts to unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party-Bank.

11. With this argument and on perusal of decision relied by the Opposite Party Counsel, it is held that though certain documents like Annual Returns of Assets, Investments, I.T.Returns etc., were earlier declared as private or third party information, as far as spouses are concerned they are not private or personal or third party information between them, in the context of narrated dispute especially for maintenance purposes”.  In the present case the Complainant’s husband has obtained the Bank Statement of the Complainant since they are spouses, thereby it not amounts to any information given to the 3^rd party.  Hence it is not proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that by furnishing the Bank Statement of the Complainant to her husband and which was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court Does not amounts to adopting un trade practice by the Opposite Party-Bank and thereby there is no deficiency of service by the Opposite Party-Bank.  Hence, the Complainant fails to prove that there is unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party-Bank and thereby there is deficiency of service.     Hence, this point is held in the Negative.    

12. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No cost.  

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 19^th day of June 2017)

         MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT
 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Smt.Srinisha, who being the Complainant has filed her affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of the Pass Bok
2. Copy of the Bank Statement
3. Copy of the Complaint
4. Copy of the Letter dt.18.06.2015
5. Copy of the Legal Notice

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.A.D.Ramachandra Bhat, the Senior Manager of the Opposite Party.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Citations.

     MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT