STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Bhavjit Singh Kalra, (earlier residing at H.No.320, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh) now resident of H.No.1165, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh 

                                                                      ……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.  Axis Bank Limited, SCO No.343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head.

2.  Trans Union CIBIL Limited (Formerly Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited) One IndiaBulls Centre, Tower 2A, 19th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013

                                                               …….Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 25.09.2018 passed by  District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint   No. 961/2017.

BEFORE:           JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                    MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER

Argued by:    Mr.Manoj Lakhotia,Advocate for the appellant.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

             Appellant/Complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), ordering that OP No.1/respondent No.1 will pay to him Rs.7000/- towards compensatory cost and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The amount awarded was ordered to be paid in a time bound manner, failing which, it was to entail penal consequences.

2.            As per facts on record, the complainant was enjoying credit card facility registered with OP No.1 whereof 2007. The said credit card was closed on 30.7.2011 and at that time nothing was due against the complainant. It was his grievance that thereafter OP No.1 uploaded data qua loan raised by him at the website of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) and he was wrongly shown defaulter.  The OP continued to upload the data from time to time and in the last it was uploaded on 31.12.2016.  It is case of the complainant that OP NO.1 has no right to upload information qua credit card facility used by the complainant at the website of the CIBIL on expiry of 30 days from the date of termination/closing of the loan.  It was his positive case that after 31.12.2011, on which date credit card was closed, no transaction took place in the said account.  Data qua loan paid by the complainant was uploaded on the website of CIBIL on 31.12.2016.  Terming it clear-cut violation of Rule 22 of the Credit Information Companies Rules,2006, it was averred that on account of said act on the part of OP No.1, his reputation was lowered down in the eyes of many people. His financial position has also suffered loss.  Alleging  deficiency in providing service, a prayer was made to direct OP NO.1 to get his name removed from the website and also pay compensation for suffering physical and mental harassment. 

3.             Upon notice, OP NO.1-Axis Bank Limited failed to turn up  and accordingly it was proceeded against ex parte.

               OP No.2 filed its reply stating that  the complaint was not maintainable against it.  It was stated that Credit Information Report only reflected the information submitted to it by its member credit institution qua loan raised by the complainant. Credit Information report was sent in a standard format.  It was further said that OP No.2 has no right whatsoever to effect any change in the data sent by  the concerned credit institution of the complainant. It was further stated that OP NO.1 sent a  form   for updating information qua bank account in dispute.  In the CIBIL status, loan raised by the complainant was shown as settled.

4.           The complainant filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the complaint.

5.              Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on perusal of  pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, granted relief to the complainant in the manner, as referred to, in the earlier part of the order.

 6.             The complainant has filed this appeal with a view to get compensation enhanced and issue direction to the CIBIL- respondent No.2 to remove his name from the arena of loanees who have been shown defaulters.

7.             The Forum, on taking note of provision of Rule 22 of the Credit Information Companies Regulation (Gazette) 2006, said that

 the information qua defaulters is to be uploaded in a time bound manner. The Forum when rejecting pleas raised by the OP/respondent, opined as under ;

“The Credit Institution can update the data only in case of change in the liability of the borrower, not otherwise, and in case of change, it must be done by the end of each reporting period not exceeding 30 days until the termination of the respective account, not beyond that.  Thus, it is clear that in any case, the Credit Institution is not legally entitled to update the data in the CIBIL after termination/closure of the loan account of the borrower or after the expiry of 30 days period of change in the loan account or when there is no change in the liability of the borrower.

      In the case of the complainant, the credit card account was settled and closed by paying the due amount on 30.7.2011 and thereafter nothing remains due to be paid by the complainant. So, in any case, the OP is not legally entitled to update the CIBIL after expiry of 30 days from 30.7.2011, which erroneously been updated till 31.11.2017 by Opposite Party No.1 causing continuous harassment to the complainant.

      It is pertinent to mention that the Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has mentioned that on receipt of the compliant, it raised the grievance of the complainant pertaining to Account bearing No.4718610000401571 with Opposite Party No.1 for confirmation of information reflected in the complainant’s CIR as reported by them and/or for issue of necessary instructions for modification, if any, and pursuant thereto, the Opposite Party No.1 vide its email dated 16.1.2018 has sent the OLM (Online Maintenance Form) for updating the information with respect to the said account and to remove the status of SETTLED entry.  It is also stated that Opposite Party No.1 has also confirmed the current balance and amount overdue as “Zero” for the said account and thus, the Opposite Party No.2 has complied with its statutory duties.”

8.         Thereafter it was rightly said that OP No.1 was guilty of rendering deficient service. It was further said that OP NO.1, to some extent, was missing in performance of its duties. Timely information was not given to the CIBIL. Taking note of the above facts, compensation to the tune of Rs.7000/- was granted.    We are of the opinion that the compensation granted by the Forum is quite just and reasonable. No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

9.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.   The order of the District Forum is upheld. 

10 .          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.