Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
1. This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 22.04.2016 of the State Commission in complaint no. 299 of 2016 whereby the complaint was dismissed in limine.
2. We have heard the appellant in person (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘bank’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 22.04.2016 and the memorandum of appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the bank persuaded the complainant and his son for transactions through their representative Mr. Karnabastula Sudhakar Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sudhakar Rao’) in 2012 on the pretext of selling gold. Sudhakar Rao sought the bank account numbers and cheque numbers on behalf of the bank for blocking money in the account of the complainant and his son for sale of gold by ICICI Bank. According to the complainant, Sudhakar Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.3,58,000/- from the complainant on 23.11.2012 vide cheque no. 301649 of account no. 007101032309. It is also alleged that Sudhakar Rao also borrowed Rs.5,40,000/- from the son of the complainant, Amit Goel on 23.11.2012 vide cheque no. 672302 of account no. 003901074365. Sudhakar Rao informed the complainant that he had returned the both the loans by depositing cheques and had given fake / fabricated cheque deposit receipts on 06.12.2012 as proof(s) of returning the loans but in fact no such cheque had been deposited by him in the accounts of the complainant and his son. Again on 01.03.2013 Sudhakar Rao gave cheques drawn on his account with ICICI bank towards return of the loans but the said cheques got dishonoured due to insufficient funds on 29.03.2013. The said cheating was reported to the bank on 12.04.2013 but the bank had not taken any action against Sudhakar Rao. The loans of the complainant and his son were eventually returned by Mr. Sudhakar Rao on 26.04.2013 and 27.04.2013, respectively. The bank issued the bank account statement of the complainant unauthorisedly to Sudhakar Rao and his accomplice Harshvardhan showing transaction of returning loan as proof of extortion by blackmailing. Also, the bank issued the bank account statement of the son of the complainant unauthorisedly to Sudhakar and his accomplice Harshvardhan showing transaction of returning loan as proof of extortion by blackmailing. It is also alleged that the bank unauthorisedly manipulated and converted saving bank account of the complainant into joint account with his wife without any application and has not informed the complainant about the manipulation of the account, which is very serious malafide irregularity. The case of the complainant is that the bank unauthorizedly withdrew the money from the accounts of his wife Mrs. Renu Goel and his son, Amit Goel. It is alleged by the complainant that the said cheating was detected by the bank on 12.08.2013, reported to Reserve Bank of India on 02.09.2013 and admitted in report on actual Fraud in RBI – FRMS – FMR I in Fraud No. ICICI303-0068 on 06.09.2013 and confirmed by Hyderabad Police Station in the Charge Sheet in FIR No. 35 of 2014 in Begumpet Police Station. The bank did not restore the money. A First Information Report has been registered by Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police. It is alleged that the bank had filed an FIR No. 35 of 2014 in Begumpet Police Station on 21.01.2014 against Sudhakar Rao, Kusupati Harshvsardhan, Mr. I. Kishan Chand and Mr. Puppala Ravinder Kumar officers of the bank under section 409, 420, 468 471 I.P.C. for forgery and cheating etc. complaint to the police on 21.01.2004.
4. The grievance of the complainant is that the bank unauthorizedly disclosed the details of the bank accounts of the complainant and his son to Mr. Sudhakar Rao, who filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate against him annexing the copy of the said bank statement. According to the complainant, his bank details were also disclosed to another employee of the bank Mr. Kusupati Harshvardhan, who filed another complaint against him before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Being aggrieved with the supply of his bank statements to Shri Sudhakar Rao and Shri Kusupati Harshvardhan, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission
6. The State Commission, vide impugned Order dated 22.04.2016, dismissed the complaint observing as under:
“We feel that present complaint is a counter blast to the FIR registered by Sudhakar against complainant and his family members. Moreover, the complainant contains the allegations of fraud, forgery which cannot be gone into summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. The same require detailed evidence and the complainant should seek the same by filing a civil suit by recovery of damages.
The complaint seems to be abuse of benevolent provision of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is dismissed in limine.”
7. Aggrieved by the said Order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed the instant appeal before this Commission.
8. The complainant, who is present in person, has argued that no relief for any cheating, Fraud, Forgery, Complaint in Court, FIR, Bail etc. has been claimed in the complaint, therefore, the complainant is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has further argued that the bank has acted and disclosed the personal private information i.e. statement of accounts of the complainant and his son to unauthorized persons in violation of para 3.4 Customer Grievance Redressal Policy, 5.6.5 Providing Monthly Statement of Accounts, 5.8.8-Addition of the name, 15.5 – Dealing with incidence of frequent dishonor, 16- dealing with complaints, 16.5 – Grievance Redressal Mechanism, 17 – Erroneous Debits arising on Fraudulent Transactions, 17.2 – Compensating the Customer, 25 – Customer Confidentiality Obligations and 32- Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers of the Master Circular on Customer Services in Banks of the Reserve Bank of India dated 1st July 2015. He furthermore argued that the bank also violated Chapter/ para 1.1 Objectives, 2.1.1-To act fairly and reasonably, 2.1.4 to deal quickly and sympathetically with things that go wrong, 2.1.5 to treat all your personal information as private and confidential, 5 privacy and confidentiality, 7 complaints grievance, 11-senior Citizens and 12– Protecting your accounts of the Clause of Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers.
In so far as the contention that the complaint is counterblast to the FIR registered by Sudhakar Rao, he stated that Sudhakar Rao registered counterblast FIR to the FIR No. 123 of 2013 in Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. In the FIR No. 123 of 2013 charges have been framed against Sudhakar Rao and employee of the respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the bank has argued that the complaint involved complicated and disputed questions of facts as the complaint prima facie discloses allegation of fraud, cheating and forgery, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Civil Court is appropriate to decide such matter. He further argued that since the criminal proceedings are already pending, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that the loan was given to Mr. Sudhakar Rao in his personal capacity and not a representative / agent of the bank and the sole grievance of the complainant is against Sudhakar Rao and not against the bank, therefore, the bank cannot be made liable for any act done by its employee in its personal capacity.
10. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
11. From the above examination, we are of the view that since the criminal proceedings containing allegations of fraud and forgery, which are originated on account of supply of statements of accounts of the complainant and his son to third person(s), are pending consideration and the matter involves complicated questions of fact, the same cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and requires to be relegated to civil court. The examination of this complaint would require voluminous evidence and the same is not possible under the summary proceedings before this Commission. The complainant should seek redressal of his grievance by filing a civil suit before the appropriate forum.
12. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the Order of the State Commission is a well-reasoned Order and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
13. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
