Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/12/2021

Sanjaya Kumar Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-ICICI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. B. Mishra, Mrs. S. Mohanty

05 Dec 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 12/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Sanjaya Kumar Singh,

S/O- Madan Singh, At- Tiwarigali,

Po/Ps- Khetrajpur,

Sambalpur-768003, Odisha                                                                 ......Complainant.

Vrs.

1.       ICICI Bank Ltd,

          At/Po/Ps- Ainthapali, Sambalpur,

          768002, Odisha

2.       Trans Union CIBIL Ltd.

          (Formerly known as Credit Information Bureau India) Ltd.

          One World Centre, Tower 2A, 19^th Floor,

Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road,

Mumbai-400013, Maharastra                                                  ......O.Ps.

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri.B.Mishra, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.No. 1             :-         Sri. N.K.Dash, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                        :-         Authorised Representative

 

Date of Filing:04.03.2021,Date of Hearing :01.11.2022, Date of Judgement : 05.12.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant filed this case about an unseen/unknown credit card fraud and the economical and mental harassment because of the ICICI Bank Ltd., thereafter financial credit rating done by CIBIL. During September 2019, as a job seeker the Complainant trying for a job at Indiabulls personal loan provider in his own town, along with other friends. All of the other friends of the Complainant got selected but the Complainant’s candidature was rejected by the company. After inquiry from the ASM of the Company who disclosed that the Complainant has been declared as a defaulter by CIBIL as the Complainant a credit card overdue of more than lakh. When the Complainant visited to the branch and enquired about the same, he was socked to learnt that an amount of Rs. 99,861/- remains unpaid since 24/08/2008 against a credit card which had never opted not had sensed off. On dtd. 20^th Sep, 2019, the Complainant visited ICICI Bank branch for an NOC’s to obtain his two wheeeler RC book from local RTO office, as during 2006 the Complainant had opted for a two wheeler loan from ICICI Bank Ltd. and the recovery team of the same branch had kept his RC book which they never handed over to the Complainant. An amount of Rs. 1442/- remain un paid since 2008 for which the bank did not allow him the NOC to cancel their hypothecation. On the same the Complainant cleared the pending amount and later got the NOC’s via post. The Complainant also enquired about any pending dues related to credit card issued against his credentials i.e PAN, the officials from ICICI Bank after going thorough check both manually and online categorically rejected of having any credit card from ICICI Bank. The Bank don’t have any record of having any credit against his name and PAN but remain as black spot in the CIBIL history. After few days, there were numerous callmade to the Complainant by ICICI Bank authorities stating location from Hyderabad, Bangaluru, New Delhi, Punjab etc. asking  him to clear the overdue and SMS’s from different unknown numbers about the delivery of the credit card as per his disposition. The whole phenomenon had added to his agony manifold, but a firm belief on RBI Banking Ombudsman remains as a ray of hope. They keep on asking the Complainant that the Complainant live in Delhi, working for a real estate firm which all a blattant lie. On dtd. 5^th November, 2019, the Complainant received a dispute closure mail from CIBIL whereby they remove the credit card. On dtd. 20^th January 2020, the Complainant wrote a mail to CIBIL for addressing his difficulties while assessing his CIBIL score to which the Complainant got a reply that the matter will take 30 days to get resolved. During telephonic conversation with Ombudsman officials, he stated that ICICI Bank is helpless in recovering the details without valid CIBIL information. On dtd. 18^th February 2020, the Complainant received a mail where they shared a link towards the reply of the Complainant appeal. The recent lock down after 23^rd March 2020 and the strict norms followed thereafter came as a blessing in disguise for the Complainant as the recovery call got stopped but never got the  justice in terms of Compensation from Banking Ombudsman. So the Complainant filed this case to award a stringent judgment by using all the vested power.
2. The Written Version of the O.P No. 1 is that the Complainant has been issued with a credit card by the OP No. 1. However, the Complainant has not provided the Credit Card number or any account details pertaining thereto. As per the record of the OP No. 1, no such card or loan has been issued to the Complainant. Given so, there can be no basis either in law or in fact for the present case to be maintainable. The Complainant has not provided any details relating to availing of the service from the OP No. 1. Merely on the basis of CIBIL report one cannot allege that “complaint” is maintainable. As stated, no service has been availed by the Complainant from the OP No. 1.  The OP No. 1 has received the communication from CIBIL that the CIBIL score of the Complainant has been resolved. As per the CIBIL status report “account removed from the report”. The Complainant had availed auto loan for two wheelers and an amount of Rs. 1442/- remains to be paid. However, non-payment of remaining amount of two-wheeler auto loan and withholding RC book has no relation with the CIBIL score and non-issuance of the credit card. As has been accepted by the Complainant, he has repaid the remaining amount of the auto loan and received the NOC. The OP No. 1 did not issue any credit card in the name of the Complainant. Further, downgrading of his CIBIL  score  has been rectified at the end of the CIBIL as per the communication received. Against his PAN Card number, no credit card has been issued. The Banking Ombudsman has closed the matter as no credit card was issued and Complainant has not provided CIBIL Control number. No service has been availed by the Complainant from the OP No. 1. No credit card has been issued against the said PAN Card. Further, his CIBIL score has been rectified as per the communication of the CIBIL and no other issues are pending for adjudication as alleged or at all against the OP No. 1.

The Written Version of the OP No. 2 is that the OP No. 2 is engaged in the business of creating, storing, retrieving, compiling, collecting, processing and maintaining a data bank of credit  information relating to both individuals and entities of all types whether incorporated or not, for the use of banks, financial institutions, etc. Dealing with the distribution of credit. The OP No. 2 functions as a credit information company under the provisions of CICRA read with the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 and the Credit Information Companies Regulations, 2006. In terms of Section 18 of CICRA, it is clear that not with standing anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any dispute on matters relating to the business of credit information is required to be settled solely by arbitration or conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not by way of a consumer complaint. The OP No. 2 is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and veracity of any of the information reported/submitted by the member credit institutions. Such responsibility lies with the reporting institutions as per CICRA and the Rules & Regulations made there under. It is further submitted that when information/data as required under the CICRA is submitted by a member credit institution, OP No. 2 has no reason to believe that any information therein is correct. U/s 30 of CICRA, no suit or other legal proceedings can inter alia against OP No. 2 for anything done by it in good faith or in pursuance of CICRA or any other law for the time being in force. In view of the well-defined provisions of the CICRA and the Rules and the Regulations made ther under, the Complainant ought to have taken up his grievance directly with the other OP No. 1. Impleading OP No. 2 is a clear of mis-joinder of parties since OP No. 2 is statutorily restrained from unilaterally making any correction/modification in the credit information of the Complainant. The Complainant had initially approached OP No. 2 vide complaint bearing no. CDSo7102019001027 on 4^th October 2019 through online dispute resolution portal of OP No. 2 disputing the ownership of an unspecified credit card reflecting in his CIR. The Complainant had not specified the disputed credit card number nor had he specified which member bank had issued the credit card. Further the Complainant had also disputed that he is unable to seek his CIBIL score. After the careful analysis of the Complaint, The OP No. 2 responded to the Complainant vide email dtd. 7^th Oct, 2019 and informed the Complainant that the subscription of the Complainant was not activated as the identity Verification was not completed by the Complainant. The identity Verification is essential for OP No. 2 to protect the security of the Complainant’s personal data and prevent fraud, without proper verification of personal data, the payment  cannot be accepted, hence no subscription was availed by the Complainant. Thereafter vide email dtd. 5^th November, 2019, the OP No. 2 further informed the Complainant that after conducting comprehensive analysis of the Complainant’s credit information available in OP No. 2 database, it was observed that based on the personal identification details of the Complainant, CIR of the Complainant had loan accounts of another individual who have had similar identifying details as that of the Complainant. The OP No. 2 immediately removed the dispute credit card bearing no. 5176532501684004 reported by the OP No. 1.

The Complainant once again vide email dtd 22^nd January, 2020 approached the OP No. 2 disputing low CIBIL score and the ownership of the same credit card bearing no. 5176532501684004 which was disputed by him in his earlier complaint. The OP No. 2 submitted vide email dated 28^th January 2020, the OP No. 2 had informed the Complainant that the OP No. 1 had reported the Complainant with negative Days Past Due along with Amount over Due of Rs. 1442/- from 1^st February 2019 to 1^st August 2019 for the loan account number ending with XXXX7402. Therefore the Complainant’s CIBIL Score was low. The Complainant once again approached the OP No.2 vide its online dispute channel on 28^th January 2020 approached the OP No. 2 requesting the OP No. 2 to for waive-off the outstanding amount of Rs. 1442 reported  by the OP No. 1. On receipt of the complaint, the OP No.2 carried out detailed analysis of the dispute raised by the Complainant. It was observed by the OP No. 2 that the OP No. 1 had already updated the credit information dispute by the Complainant on 20^th September 2019. The current Account and Amount over dues were updated as “0” and Date closed was updated as 2oth September, 2019. This was informed to the Complainant vide Op No. 2’s email dtd 30^th January 2020.  The Complainant is once again disputing his inability to view the CIBIL Score through his alleged subscription. The OP No. 2 had already addressed this grievance of the Complainant vide email dtd. 07.10.2019. The prayer clause of the Complainant is wholly misconceived, untenable, bereft of any merit, motivated and not maintainable.

3. From the version and submission of the parties it is found that no service has been availed by the Complainant from the OP No. 1. No credit card has been issued against the said PAN Card by the OP No. 1. His CIBIL score has been rectified as per the communication of the CIBIL and no other issues are pending for adjudication as alleged or at all against the OP No. 1. Further the OP No. 2 is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and veracity of any of the information reported/submitted by the member credit institutions. Such responsibility lies with the reporting institutions as per CICRA and the Rules & Regulations made there under. So there is no deficiency in part of the O.P. No.2

From the supra discussion it is clear that as a customer of the O.P. No.1, he closed his loan account, got the NOC and for some unknown person the complainant could not got his CIBIL Score properly due to latches of O.P. No.1, debarred to get his job for the fault of O.P. No.1. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1

Accordingly, it is ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed against the O.P. No.1 and dismissed against O.P. No.2 on contest. For the deficiency in service of O.P. No.1, the Complainant could not get a job and it is a black spot in his carreer. The O.P. No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.40.00 lakhs with 4% interest P.A. from the day of filing of this order. In case of non payment the amount will carry 9% interest P.A. from date of filing of complaint till realisation.

 

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 5^th day of Dec, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.