Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/394/2017

Bhavjit Singh Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Barclays Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Lakhotia Adv.

19 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	394 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	03.05.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	19.05.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Bhavjit Singh Kalra, earlier residing at House NO.320, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh, now resident of House NO.1165, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.   

 

             …..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

1]  Barclays Bank PLC, Ground Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019

 

2]  M/s Phoenix Arc Private Limited, SCO No.153-155, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Head.

 

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

        MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA      MEMBER

        SH.RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

 

Sh.Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for the complainant.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant availed loan of Rs.1.50 lacs from Opposite Party NO.1, which was finally settled as per letter dated 13.7.2012 (Ann.C-1) and paid, whereupon the OP No.1 issued Completion of Settlement Letter dated 10.11.2012 (Ann.C-2).  It is averred that during the year 2013-14, after closing loan account, the OP No.1 sold the said settled & paid loan account to OP No.2 and OP No.2, having been aware of the facts & closure & payment of the loan account, intentionally posted the Loan Account of the complainant in CIBIL as outstanding & unpaid Loan Account from Nov., 2012 to Nov., 2014.  It is also averred that in order to justify their wrongs, the Opposite Party showed the status of the closed Loan Account again closed on 30.11.2014 (Ann.C-3).  The matter as reported to the OPs, whereupon the complainant was sent ‘No Due Certificate’, which the complainant had never asked for (Ann.C-5).  It is also stated that the OP No.2, on his own without any request, in order to justify their wrongs and false reporting in CIBIL, made in the year 2014, sent another ‘No Dues Certificate’ dated 8.12.2014 to the complainant, whereas the complainant had no privity of contract with OP No.2 as the complainant had not taken any loan from it nor paid to it (Ann.C-7).  It is submitted that OPs are not entitled to report the matter in CIBIL in 2014 and there is no justification for the same.  Alleging the said act of the OPs as deficiency in service, therefore, present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant on the point of admission of the complaint and also examined the entire record.   

 

3]       The complainant took loan from Barclays Bank PLC, Nehru Place, New Delhi, which as per Settlement Offer dated 13.7.2012 (Ann.C-1) was settled by payment of Rs.75,000/- by the complainant.  The Barclays Bank vide their letter dated 10.11.2012 (Ann.C-2) has further certified receipt of complete payment of Rs.75,000/- and settlement of account.

 

4]       The complainant has challenged the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited report   (Annexure C-3) without impleading CIBIL (India) Ltd. as opposite party.  The complainant as such is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 

 

5]       The complainant has moreover taken loan from Barclays Bank at New Delhi/OP No.1.  No cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint before this Forum at Chandigarh.

 

6]       Keeping in view the facts, as discussed above, the complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chandigarh, being without merit, is dismissed in limine.  No order as to costs.

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the complainant and filed be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th May, 2017                              Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER