The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, has held the State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service for sharing a customer’s personal savings account details with his former employer without consent. The Commission directed the bank to pay compensation and litigation costs to the complainant.
The case was filed by Pankaj Kumar Shukla, a former employee of Govind Sugar Mill, who maintained a personal savings account at SBI’s Hargaon branch in Sitapur district. According to the complaint, the account statement was submitted by the sugar mill in an affidavit while a labour dispute between Shukla and his former employer was pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Customer Cited Breach of Confidentiality
Shukla claimed that he had never authorised SBI to disclose his personal savings account details to his employer. He alleged that the disclosure caused him mental distress and violated his right to confidentiality.
The complainant also alleged that the account statement initially contained incorrect entries. According to the complaint, the bank later acknowledged and rectified the entries through a letter dated April 29, 2022.
When Shukla sought an explanation from the bank regarding the disclosure, he alleged that the Hargaon branch failed to provide a satisfactory response. SBI’s main branch at Lakhimpur Kheri later admitted in a written reply dated July 21, 2022 that the account statement had been shared with Govind Sugar Mill following the employer’s request.
Bank’s Defence Rejected
In its defence, SBI argued that Govind Sugar Mill maintained its salary account with the bank and had sought the account statement to reconcile wage-related records. The bank contended that sharing the information was lawful and did not amount to deficiency in service.
SBI also submitted that the employer should have been made a party to the proceedings, as the labour dispute was pending before the High Court.
The Commission rejected the bank’s arguments after examining the evidence. The Bench, comprising President Abhimanyu Lal Srivastava and members Dr. Alok Kumar Sharma and Joohi Quddusi, observed that the disputed account was a personal savings account maintained at the Hargaon branch and had no connection with the complainant’s salary account or employer.
Commission Awards Compensation
The Commission held that banking institutions are bound by confidentiality obligations and cannot disclose a customer’s personal financial information to any third party without explicit consent, except where disclosure is required under law.
It ruled that sharing the complainant’s personal account statement with his former employer violated established banking norms and amounted to a clear deficiency in service. The Commission also noted that two senior SBI officials named in the complaint had no direct role in the incident and were therefore not held liable.
The Commission directed SBI’s Hargaon branch and Lakhimpur Kheri main branch to jointly pay ₹20,000 as compensation for mental harassment, along with interest at 6% per annum from July 26, 2022 until realization. The bank was also ordered to pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
