_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Punjab National Bank vs Rupa Mahajan Pahwa
Citation - Appeal No. FA-2008/659
Parties involved -
Petitioner - Punjab National Bank
Respondant - Rupa Mahajan Pahwa
Bench -
Mr. Justice D.K. Jain
Mr. Vinay Kumar
Relevant Acts and Sections –
Facts of the Case –
A consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II New Delhi, by Mrs. Rupa Mahajan Pahwa, against the Petitioner, Punjab National Bank. Her complaint was that a duplicate passbook was issued to a third person by the bank without her knowledge or consent. The savings bank account in question was in the joint name of Rupa and her husband, Ajay Pahwa. Apparently, the bank had issued a duplicate passbook at a time when the relationship between her and her husband had deteriorated up to a point where a divorce notice from her husband was issued.
The husband had deserted the complainant and their infant daughter without any financial support as per the complaint. She was, therefore, seeking an award of maintenance through court proceedings against her husband. Allegedly, due to the issue of a duplicate passbook, the complainant's confidential financial details, without her authority, were disclosed to the husband. The Complainant was suffering on two accounts for the lapse on the part of the bank. She had to face utmost humiliation in the court where her case was going on. She was undergoing acute mental torture and harassment, as her situation was already terrible, and this had made it worse. It was going to affect the amount of maintenance and alimony significantly. That had left her to distort entirely, as she already was under tremendous tension, having been deserted (with a minor daughter) by her husband without a single penny or shelter.
It was clear from the content of the complaint that the Complainant recognized the Bank's conduct by issuing a duplicate passbook, without her knowledge or consent, as a direct reason for the reduction in the amount of relief granted to her in the proceedings of the divorce. The petition has mentioned in the prayer the amount of Rs.7 lakhs to be claimed as compensation.
The District Council had approved the appeal for a prize of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for the Complaint's grievance, Rs.30,000 / - for unemployment, and Rs.5000 / - as legal costs.
The Punjab National Bank's decision was only partially approved, by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by providing a lump sum payment of Rs.50,000 / -.
Punjab National Bank appealed the above decision in the current Revision application.
Issue of the Case –
Should the bank be held liable for the damage caused to the complainant?
Arguments of the Petitioner –
The pressure of learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank was for the reason that, as per the Account Opening Form, the account was a joint account between the Complainant and her husband. A copy of the application for the opening of the was account was on record. It shows that the mode of operation of the account was meant to be E OR S. It was explained as either or survivor, meaning that it could be operated either by the Complainant or by her husband as a joint account holder.
It was clearly stated that the Bank issued the duplicate passbook at specific instructions of the account holder, Mr. Ajay Pahwa, as per a letter dated 30.6.2007. A copy of the letter of 30.6.2007 was also on record and was perused. The letter, carrying the signature of Ajay Pahwa, authorizes the Manager, the Punjab National Bank, Vasant Kunj, to issue a passbook and hand it over.
Arguments of the Respondent –
It was argued by the Complainant that the conduct of the Bank was not above board in the was the case. For one thing, it was not the case of the Bank that the original passbook had been lost or stolen, and therefore a duplicate was issued. The letter of Shri Ajay Pahwa merely stated that the passbook was not available to him. She also pointed out that the authorization was in the nature of an open approval in favor of whoever physically held and carried it to the Bank.
In order to ensure that the passbook did not go into the hands of anyone other than a person authorized by one of the two holders of the account, the Bank should have demanded specific authorization in the name of an individual. She argued that in all banking transactions, whenever any authorization was issued in the name of a third person, the account holder also had to necessarily attest the signature of the authorized person in the body of the letter itself.
Judgment of the Case –
No merit was to be found in the Revision of Petition. The same was dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the Bank to the Complainant, in addition to the award of the State Commission.
Related Case Laws -
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Can An Employee Share People's Bank Information With Other Employees?" by clicking the button below.
Comments