JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The complainant/respondent, Alok Aggarwal and his wife Anju Aggarwal obtained one credit card each from the petitioner-bank. The bank started levying interest and certain charges in the bills of the complainant and his wife. The complainant felt aggrieved from the levy of the interest and charges since according to him he had not been receiving the monthly statement of the credit card on a regular basis. A settlement was then arrived at between the complainant and the petitioner-bank whereby the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,954/- to the bank and discontinued the use of the credit card. 2. Subsequently, the complainant applied to American Express Bank for issue of a platinum credit card. His application was rejected on the ground that there was an overdue payment of Rs.69,891/- from him as on 31-01-2009. The aforesaid information to American Express Bank was provided by Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. (CIBIL). The petitioner-bank offered to remove the name of the complainant from the record of CIBIL on payment of Rs.74,004.18/-. According to the complainant despite his having brought the settlement to the knowledge of the bank, the amount in question continued to be carried forward. Being aggrieved from the action of the petitioner the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum at Kashmere Gate, Delhi seeking compensation amounting to Rs.17,50,000/- besides cost of litigation amounting to Rs.25,000/-. He also sought a direction to the petitioner-bank to cancel the amount being shown outstanding in respect of the credit cards which were issued to him and his wife. 3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner-bank inter alia on the ground that settlement dated 31-03-2004 whereunder the sum of Rs.1954/- was paid by the complainant to the bank was only for the purpose of not initiating legal proceedings against the complainant and in fact a sum of Rs.35010.82/- was outstanding in one card whereas a sum of Rs.15090.69/- was outstanding in the other card. The District Forum vide its order dated 23-09-2001 issued the following directions to the petitioner-bank. (1) To inform the CIBIL that it settled all outstanding dues of the two credit cards Nos.5543-7586-8505-4195 and 5543-7588-8502-1770 by settlement dated 31-03-2004 and received the payment of the settled amount within the stipulated period and, as such, the complainant was no more defaulter. (2) The bank shall desist from indulging in such activity as has been suffered by the complainant and pleaded in the complaint. (3) To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony and pain. (4) To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. 4. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner-bank approached the State Commission at Delhi by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18-03-2014 the petitioner-bank is before us by way of this revision petition. 5. It is an admitted case that the issue of payment of the dues, which the petitioner-bank was claiming in respect of the credit cards in question, were settled by way of a settlement dated 31-03-2004 where under a sum of Rs.1954/- was paid to the petitioner-bank. The petitioner-bank did not produce any document before the District Forum which would show that the aforesaid settlement dated 31-03-2004 was only for the purpose of not initiating legal proceedings against the complainant and his wife and, therefore, the claim of the bank for the balance amount continued to subsist even thereafter. A concurrent finding of the fact in this regard has been recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission and we find absolutely no ground to take a contrary view. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in a case where the creditor and the borrower come to a settlement, the creditor is required to comply with the statutory requirement prescribed in the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by furnishing the requisite credit information to CIBIL. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Section 17 of the Act. It is also pointed out that the contravention of the statutory requirement is punishable under the provisions of the Act. 7. Admittedly, the settlement dated 31-03-2004 took place much before the Act came into force on 23-06-2005. Section 2(d) of the Act which defines credit information reads as under: “(d) “credit information” means any information relating to – - the amounts and the nature of loans or advances, amounts outstanding under credit cards and other credit facilities granted or to be granted, by a credit institution to any borrower;
- the nature of security taken or proposed to be taken by a credit institution from any borrower for credit facilities granted or proposed to be granted to him;
- the guarantee furnished or any other non-fund based facility granted or proposed to be granted by a credit institution for any of its borrowers;
- the creditworthiness of any borrower of a credit institution;
- any other matter which the Reserve Bank may, consider necessary for inclusion in the credit information to be collected and maintained by credit information companies, and, specify, by notification, in this behalf.”
In our view, since the provisions of the Act are prospective and not retrospective, the credit information which a credit information company is required to furnish in terms of Section 17 of the Act can be only that information which inter alia relates to the amount outstanding under a credit card, on the date the Act came into force. The credit information as defined in the Act does not include information relating to outstandings under a credit card, which had got liquidated before the Act came into force. In view of the settlement dated 31-03-2004, nothing remained outstanding against the complainant on the date the Act came into force. Therefore, there could be no question of the petitioner-bank informing the CIBIL that a sum of Rs.35010.82/- was outstanding in one card and a sum of Rs.15,090.69/- was outstanding in the other credit card. We fail to appreciate how the amounts in question can be said to be outstanding against the complainant and/or his wife even after the bank had entered into a settlement with them on 31-03-2004. Once the parties arrived at a settlement, the entire outstanding in the credit cards in question got wiped out on payment of the credit amount of Rs.1,954/- to the petitioner-bank. Therefore, the act of the petitioner in informing CIBIL that there were amounts outstanding against the complainant and his wife against the credit cards issued to them was certainly an act of deficiency in rendering services. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner-bank in seeking to recover a sum of Rs.74,004.18/- from the complainant as a pre-condition for removing the aforesaid outstandings under the credit cards, despite an earlier settlement dated 31-03-2004 was highly uncalled for and unacceptable. If the petitioner-bank was not satisfied with the amount of Rs.1,954/- towards the settlement of its dues nothing prevented the bank from not entering into such a settlement, but, having entered into a settlement and accepting the aforesaid amount in settlement of its dues, the petitioner-bank had no business to inform CIBIL that there were outstandings against the credit cards issued to the complainant and his wife and then attempt to recover the amount of Rs.74,004.18/- from them. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that as far as directions Nos.1 and 2 passed by the District Forum and maintained by the State Commission are concerned they call for no interference from us. However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including that the petitioner-bank may be under a misconception with respect to the scope of the Act, the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum including the cost of litigation is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Unless already paid, the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the complainant within two weeks from today failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of the order till the date of payment. |
