ASHOK KUMAR GOEL Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has a Saving Bank Account bearing No.007101032309 with Safdarjung Branch of the respondent bank. Initially the account was opened in the sole name of the complainant but was later converted into a Joint Account of the complainant and his wife Mrs. Renu Goel. The wife of the complainant has an individual savings account bearing No.002901033222 with the said Bank. According to the complainant, one Sudhakar Rao, borrowed an amount of Rs.3,58,000/- from him, vide cheque dated 23.11.2012. He intimated the complainant on 06.12.2012 that the said loan had been returned by depositing a cheque of Andhra Bank in his account. In fact, no such cheque had been deposited by Mr. Sudhakar in his account. Mr. Sudhakar then gave a cheque drawn on his account with ICICI bank towards return of the loan but the said cheque got dishonoured when presented to the bank. The loan was eventually returned by Mr. Sudhakar on 26.4.2013. This is also the case of the complainant that on 10.11.2012, the bank unauthorizedly withdrew Rs.3,33,021/- from the account of his wife Mrs. Renu Goel and the said amount was restored to the account of his wife on an order of the Banking Ombudsman dated 25.09.2013.

(2.) The grievance of the complainant is that the respondent bank unauthorizedly disclosed the details of his bank account to Mr. Sudhakar Rao, who filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate against him annexing the copy of the said bank statement as an Annexure to the complaint. 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. Being aggrieved from the above referred supply of his bank statement to Shri Sudhakar Rao and Shri Kusupati Harshvardhan, the complainant is before this Commission, seeking a compensation quantified at Rs.15.00 crores, besides expenses quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-.

(3.) We have heard the complainant on the pecuniary value of this complaint. In our view, amount demanded by the complainant as compensation is highly exaggerated and wholly irrational and untenable and does not commensurate with the alleged deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The alleged unauthorized supply of the bank statement, in our view, cannot possibly result in award of such huge damages when the complainant is not able to show any substantial damage or loss of reputation etc. to him on account of the alleged unauthorized supply of his bank statement. We have perused the complaint filed by Shri Sudhakar Rao against the petitioner and his family members before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Cyberabad. The aforesaid complaint is based upon factual allegations constituting criminal offences and the bank statement of the complainant is only one of the documents filed by Shri Sudhakar Rao in support of the complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that the bank statement of the account of the complainant is the basis of the complaint filed by Sudhakar Rao against the complainant and his family members, nor can it be said that had the bank not supplied the said statement to Mr. Sudhakar Rao he would not have filed the criminal complaint against the complainant and his family members. In fact, nothing prevented Shri Sudhakar Rao from summoning the bank statement of the complainant through the process of the Court since such a statement is not privileged document disclosure of which can be withheld from a criminal court. Therefore, it would be difficult for us to say that the complainant is entitled to any substantial amount as damages form the opposite party on account of the alleged supply of bank statement to Shri Sudhakar Rao and and Shri Kusupati Harshvardhan.