- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ashok Kumar Goel v. Branch Manager, Icici Bank
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant held a Saving Bank Account initially in his sole name, later converted into a joint account with his wife at the Safdarjung Branch of the respondent bank. He alleged that one Sudhakar Rao borrowed Rs.3,58,000/- via cheque dated 23.11.2012 and falsely informed him that the loan was repaid through a cheque deposit, which was never actually made. The loan was eventually repaid on 26.4.2013. The complainant further alleged that on 10.11.2012, the bank unauthorizedly withdrew Rs.3,33,021/- from his wife's account, which was later restored upon an order from the Banking Ombudsman dated 25.09.2013.
The complainant's grievance centered on the respondent bank allegedly unauthorizedly disclosing his bank account details to Sudhakar Rao and another bank employee, Kusupati Harshvardhan, both of whom filed criminal complaints against him before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The complainant sought compensation of Rs.15 crores and additional expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- for this alleged unauthorized disclosure.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent bank committed a deficiency in service by unauthorizedly disclosing the complainant’s bank account details to third parties.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the claimed compensation of Rs.15 crores and expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- for the alleged unauthorized disclosure.
- Whether the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is attracted in the present case given the exaggerated claim for compensation.
Arguments of the Parties
Complainant's Arguments
- The bank unauthorizedly disclosed his bank account details to Sudhakar Rao and Kusupati Harshvardhan.
- Such disclosure led to criminal complaints being filed against him, causing harm and justifying a compensation claim of Rs.15 crores and Rs.1,00,000/- in expenses.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent bank’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sushil Gupta Vs. International Department, Consumer Complaint No.236 of 2013 | Illustrates the need to guard against inflated claims aimed at defeating the jurisdictional hierarchy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. | Used to demonstrate that the complainant’s exaggerated compensation claim was malafide and intended to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Commission improperly. |
| Praveen Kumar Singhia Vs. State Bank of India (2003 INDLAW NCDRC 144) | Supports the principle that inflated claims to defeat jurisdictional limits are liable to be dismissed. | Supported the Court’s view that the complainant’s compensation demand was disproportionate and malafide. |
| Indrani Chatterjee & Anr. Vs. AMRI Hospitals, Consumer Complaint No.383 of 2013 | Addresses the issue of exaggerated claims in consumer complaints, emphasizing the need for realistic claims. | Referred to highlight the Court’s stance on dismissal of complaints with inflated claims and the necessity to allow complainants to prove their claims. |
| Charan Singh’s case (Supreme Court observation) | Clarifies that claims should not be dismissed as exaggerated without giving the complainant an opportunity to prove the case. | Guided the Court’s balanced approach: while inflated claims are discouraged, complainants must be allowed to substantiate claims before dismissal. |
| Sujata Nath Vs. Popular Nursing Home & Ors, CC No.60 of 2011 | Reinforces that exaggerated claims can be dismissed at a preliminary stage but complainants have liberty to amend and file before appropriate fora. | Used to justify dismissal of the complaint with liberty to amend and file before an appropriate Consumer Forum other than the National Commission. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the complainant’s demand for Rs.15 crores as compensation was highly exaggerated, irrational, and disproportionate to the alleged deficiency by the bank. The Court observed that the complainant failed to demonstrate any substantial damage or loss of reputation resulting from the alleged unauthorized disclosure of his bank statement.
Upon review, the Court found that the criminal complaints filed by Sudhakar Rao and Kusupati Harshvardhan were based on factual allegations constituting criminal offences, and the bank statement was merely one among several documents submitted, not the sole basis for the complaints. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that Sudhakar Rao could have obtained the bank statement through lawful court procedures, as such statements are not privileged.
The Court emphasized the need to curb the tendency of filing inflated claims to bypass jurisdictional limits of Consumer Fora, referencing established precedent. It held that the complainant’s inflated compensation claim was malafide and intended to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Commission improperly.
While recognizing the Supreme Court’s caution against dismissing claims as exaggerated without opportunity to prove, the Court found the claim here manifestly inflated without basis, justifying refusal to admit the complaint at this stage.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the complaint but granted liberty to the complainant to suitably amend and file before an appropriate Consumer Forum with proper jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
The Court's final decision is DISMISSED the complaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and inflated claims.
The direct effect is that the complainant’s claim for Rs.15 crores compensation is rejected as exaggerated and malafide, and the complainant is permitted to amend and file the complaint before an appropriate Consumer Forum other than the National Commission. The opinion does not establish any new precedent but reinforces the principle against inflated claims to manipulate jurisdictional limits under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER 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.
4. The tendency to file highly exaggerated and unfounded claims, only with a view to bypass the District Forum / State Commission, has been disapproved by this Commission in a number of cases. In Sushil Gupta Vs. International Department, Consumer Complaint No.236 of 2013 the complainant claimed about Rs.3.00 crores as damages under severaldecided on 18.07.2014, heads. Rejecting the complaint at the very threshold, this Commission inter-alia observed and held as under: Under the Scheme of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (in short, the Act) the original complaint can be filed in the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission depending upon the value of the cost of the goods/services. Section 11, Section 17 and Section 21 provides that pecuniary jurisdiction of the respective foras. Section 11 provides that District Fora shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. According to Section 17, State Commission can entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed one crore and if the said value is more than rupees one crore, jurisdiction to entertain the original complaint lies with the National Commission as provided under Section 21 of the Act. Presently, no court fee on the claims preferred before the foras concerned is payable. Therefore, tendency to defeat the hierarchy as per the scheme of the Act is always there. Thus, in our considered view, the consumer fora at various levels are required to guard against the inflated claims with malafide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the foras concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only rupees eighteen lakh plus but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.2,88,55,000/- approximately as compensation to bring this case within the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is malafide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction. In our view, we are supported by three members Bench of this Commission in the matter of Praveen Kumar Singhia Vs. State Bank of India 2003 INDLAW NCDRC 144).
5. In Indrani Chatterjee & Anr. Vs. AMRI Hospitals, Consumer Complaint No.383 of the complainant had in a case of medical2013 and connected matter decided on 07.11.2014, negligence claimed more than Rs.7.00 crores as damages/compensation. Rejecting such an exaggerated claim, this Commission inter-alia observed and held as under:
11. We now advert to the second objection relating to the exaggeration of the claim in the Complaints. In Charan Singh (supra), alleging medical negligence, a Complaint was filed before this Commission under the Act, claiming 34 lac by way of compensation from the respondent hospital on various grounds, under different heads. The complaint was however, dismissed by a brief order, which reads as follows: The complainant was drawing a salary of 3000 plus allowances. This is his allegation which is not admitted by the opposite party. Even if we accept this contention is correct and even if we accept that as a result of wrong treatment given in the Hospital he has suffered permanent disability, the claim of 34 lakhs made by the complainant is excessive. We are of the view that this exaggerated claim has been made only for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission
12. Upon challenge, the order was set aside by the Honble Supreme Court, observing thus: The National Consumer Forum, in our opinion, was not fair in disposing of the complaint of the appellant by styling his claim as excessive or exaggerated after six years of the pendency of the complaint, and asking the appellant to move the State Commission or the District Forum by making a realistic claim. Whether the claim of the appellant was realistic, exaggerated or excessive, could only have been determined after the appellant had been given an opportunity to prove the case he had set up and established his claim under various heads. It was not fair to call his claim unrealistic, exaggerated or excessive without giving the appellant an opportunity to substantiate his case.
13. It appears from the observations in paragraphs No.11, 14, and 15 (SCC) of Charan Singhs case (supra) that the Honble Supreme Court expressed his unhappiness over the said order mainly for the reasons that: (i) the complaint was dismissed after six years of its filing even when the pleadings were complete; (ii) the sole factor taken into consideration to style the claim as unrealistic or exaggerated or excessive was only the amount of salary being drawn by the complainant (iii) the impugned order did not record any reasons in support of the conclusions that claim was unrealistic etc. except for the salary and (iv) because of the jurisdictional limits of the Lower Fora it would not be able to award adequate compensation, even if it was satisfied that in a given case, the complainant was entitled than what was claimed.
14. .. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the question whether or not a claim made in a complaint is realistic, exaggerated or excessive is to be determined after the complainant has been given an opportunity to prove the case he has set up and establish his claim under various heads, but it has also been held that where ex-facie the claim made appears to be unusually high without any basis, as per the case set up in the complaint, a Consumer Fora would be justified in declining to admit the complaint.
15. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Commission in Sujata Nath Vs. Popular Nursing Home & Ors. CC No.60 of 2011. Rejecting the contention of the complainant that the complainant was free to claim the compensation as per his own assessment, keeping in view the extent of the loss and the injury suffered by him and that the complaint could not be disposed of at a preliminary stage on the ground that the claim was exaggerated, vide order dated 08.7.2011, the complaint was dismissed with a direction to the complainant to suitably amend her complaint and file the same before an appropriate Consumer Forum. The said order has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court, vide an order dated 14.10.2011, in Civil Appeal No.8642 of 2011. A similar view was taken by this Commission in CC No.9 of 2010, which was dismissed on the ground that the complainant had unreasonably inflated the claim for exemplary damages for bringing the complaint with the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Civil Appeal preferred by the complainant against the said order was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2010.
16. For the aforegoing reasons, we are of the opinion that, as at present, the complainants have not been able to satisfy us as to on what basis the claims ranging between 7,00,00,000/- to 12,00,00,000/- have been quantified. We are convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.
17. Consequently, we decline to admit the complaints. All the complaints are dismissed accordingly, with liberty to the complainants to suitably amend their complaints and file the same before an Appropriate Consumer Fora.
6. We are of the opinion that it is necessary to curb such tendencies, so that the mechanism prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act for redressal of the grievances of a consumer is not distorted. The claim being highly inflated, excessive and unrealistic, made with a view to bypass the Fora below, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainants to file a suitably amended complaint before an appropriate Consumer Forum, other than the National Commission. ......................J
V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER
Alert