Delhi

StateCommission

FA/988/2013

CITI BANK N.A. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :2.11.2015

 

First Appeal No.988/13

 

Citibank, N.A.

Jeevan Bharti Building

124, Connaught Place

New Delhi-110 001

 

……Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

1. Ashok Kumar Gupta

S/o Shri Shankar Prasad

R/o Flat No.69-B,

Pockiet A-2, Mayur Vihar-III

•  

 

2. Credit Information Bureau of India Ltd. (CIBIL)

Hoechst House, 6^th Floor,

193, lBockbay Reclamation,

Nariman Point

1.  

 

.…Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.               In this appeal, the appellant herein i.e. OP before the District Forum has challenged the order dated 8.8.13 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, New Delhi (in short, ‘the District Forum’) which is as under:-
    

                   “08.08.13

                   Present Parties. OP is directed to give afresh in writing                        regarding loan 2004/2005 for 2 lakhs has already been paid               and O.P. has also issued N.O.C.  further O.P. is directed to                    forward a letter to CIBIL and copy may be forwarded to the                 complainant for upgradation of this and removed his name              from CIBIL within 30 days.”

         

2.      The only grievance of the appellant is that in the impugned order Rs.2 lacs has been mentioned as having being paid by the complainant to appellant/OP in settlement of loan account.  It is stated that the respondent/complainant had taken a loan facility of Rs. 2 lacs on 31.8.06 from the appellant/OP and the said loan account was finally settled by appellant/OP with the respondent/complainant. Earlier some installments were paid. Ultimately the loan amount was settled with the respondent/complainant for a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards full and final settlement of the loan amount.
3.      Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the letter of appellant bank dated 13.11.2009 in this regard i.e. Annexure A-5 with the appeal.It is stated that on13.11.09 respondent No. 1/complainant made the payment of Rs.70,000/- vide demand draft. Consequently the appellant as a Prudent Banker issued a letter dt. 14.11.09 to the respondent No.1/complainant thereby confirming the settlement dated 13.11.09.
4.      It is submitted that the aforesaid factual position was not denied by the respondent No.1/complainant before the District Forum.  However, while disposing of the consumer complaint of respondent No.1/complainant, the Ld. District forum in the impugned order has erroneously recorded that the respondent No.1/complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs to the appellant/OP.
5.      Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has admitted that the loan account with appellant was settled for Rs.70,000/- as one time payment..
6.      Since the loan account of respondent No.1/complainant was settled for Rs.70,000/- as one time payment as per documents on record as admitted by the Ld. Counsel for respondent/complainant, we agree with the Ld. Counsel for appellant/OP that it has been wrongly recorded in the impugned order that the respondent No.1/complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs to appellant/OP. We record the correct fact that the respondent/complainant had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as one time payment for settlement of loan account.
7.      The other grievance of the appellant is that, the appellant cann’t write to CIBIL for removing the name of respondent/complainant from CIBIL. It is stated that directions given to the appellant by Ld. District forumare contrary to the guidelines issued by RBI in this regard. It is stated that as per instructions of RBI, the appellant bank can only write status of loan account to CIBIL.  It is stated that following the RBI guidelines, the appellant bank has already written to the CIBIL about the current status in respect of the loan account of respondent/complainant as WRITTEN OFF/SETTLED STATUS POST (WO) SETTLED.
8.      Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also shown page 86 of the paper book whereby the status of loan account of the respondent/complainant is shown as WRITTEN OFF/SETTLED STATUS POST (WO) SETTLED on the information furnished by the appellant bank.
9.      Nothing contrary is pointed out on behalf of the respondent/complainant.  Rather Ld. Counsel submitted that copy of the same be supplied to respondent/complainant.  Ld. Counsel for appellant/OP has supplied the copy of aforesaid letter to respondent No.1/complainant.
10.           In view of the above discussions, the directions given by the Ld. District Forum to the appellant bank for removing the name of respondent/complainant from CIBIL stands set aside.
11.            Since the needful as per instruction of RBI has already been done by the appellant bank, nothing further is required to be done by the appellant bank.
12.           The impugned order stands modified to the extent as is stated above.
13. Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

 

     File be consigned to record room.

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

ak