Delhi

North East

CC/212/2017

Rajesh Kumar Chandel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 212/17

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Rajesh Kumar	Complainant
	Versus
	Bajaj Finance Ltd	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

30.06.2017 31.10.2018 31.10.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The facts of the case as per the complainant are that the OP had wrongly updated a loan account / agreement no. 4010CD08224049 and loan account / agreement no. 4010CD08224094 of one Rajesh Kumar (a different entity other than the complainant) against the PAN card number of the complainant bearing no. DSKPK7531P to the tune of Rs. 22,500/- due to which his CIBIL score got spoilt since he was being shown in the defaulters due to which reason the complainant could not apply for any bank loan or credit card. The complainant has further submitted that the complainant visited the OP office several times in this regard and also its head office at Ghaziabad where he was assured that vide edit report no. SRN10063067 dated 17.04.2017, the wrongly uploaded loan on his account has been removed. However, despite assurance the said loan have not been removed from the CIBIL account of the complainant. The complainant had taken out the loan statement from OP2 office and requested for removal of the said loan against his name and account since due to bad CIBIL, his applications for loan and credit card were rejected but the OP took no action on the complaint. Therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OP to remove the wrong loan account against his name and payment of compensation of Rs. 2Lacs for mental harassment from the OP.

Complainant has attached copy of edit report vide e-mails dated 14.04.2017, 17.04.2017, 24.04.2017 and 27.04.2017 with respect to loan accounts belonging to Rajesh Kumar but showing in CIBIL for one Rajesh Kumar Khatik, copy of loan account statement for agreement no. 4010CD08224049 from 07.06.2010, copy of CIBIL consumer credit information report dated 22.02.2017 of Rajesh Kumar Khatik, copy of Trans Union CIBIL report date 28.06.2017 of Rajesh Kumar, copy of loan account statement for agreement no. 4010CD08224094 from 07.06.2010.

2. Notice was issued to OP on 20.07.2017. However none appeared despite service effected on 10.08.2017 and therefore the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.12.2017.
3. The complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 17.05.2018 and 13.08.2018 respectively in reiteration of his grievance against the OP and addressed oral arguments.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have carefully perused the documentary evidence placed on record in support of his case.

The word ‘consumer’ is the fulcrum of the Consumer Protection Act (the Act) and is defined in Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act meaning any person who

1. buys and goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other that the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

 

The term ‘consumer’ has, thus, been defined to mean, a person who                 is-

1. a buyer, or
2. with the approval of the buyer, the user of the goods in question, or    
3. a hirer or person otherwise availing, or
4. with the approval of such aforesaid persons, the beneficiary, of the service(s) in question

 

with the condition super added that such buying of the goods or hiring or availing of any such service, is for a consideration, -

 

1. paid, or
2. promised, or
3. partly paid or promised, or
4. covered by any system of deferred payment

 

5. In the present case the complainant according to his own complaint has stated that due to his name appearing in CIBIL, his loan and credit card could not be approved from other banks but no services as per Section 2 (o) of the Act are found to be availed under any contract from the OP by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has failed to establish a relationship of ‘consumer’ and service provider between himself and OP to be considered as a consumer within the definition of the Act since under the Act the first and foremost condition is that only a consumer can file a complaint in the Forum since the Act is enacted for utmost protection of the rights of consumer. The complainant is not having any account with the OP nor any loan taken from it as is his own case and therefore admittedly he had never hired services of OP at any point of time and the complainant failed to answer a specific query raised by this Forum as to how was he a consumer of OP to press the present complaint on maintainability.
6. We are guided by the observations and ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission in its judgment of Mohit Sharda Vs Bank of Baroda and Anr. I (2018) CPJ 100 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission while dealing with the Revision Petition against orders passed by District Forum and Hon’ble State Commission dismissing the case of the revisionist had upheld the dismissal by the Forum and held incorrect the observation of Hon’ble State Commission Chattisgarh in viewing the revisionist as consumer on grounds that he had failed to give any information regarding how he is a consumer of the Bank and CIBIL and dismiss the Revision Petition as well the complaint on grounds of non maintainability.
7. In light of the above quoted judgment, we do not find merits in the present complaint as the same is not maintainable by virtue of the complainant not being a consumer qua the OP and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.       
8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on  31.10.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member