Order No. 28 dt. 28/12/2016
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants had fixed deposit with o.p. no.1. The o.p. bank even after securing FDs from the complainants harassed the complainants by charging penal interest on the plea that the complainants will have to surrender the o.ps. for declaring on govt. stamp paper that the o.ps. will be free to post the names of the complainants on the CIBIL website. The complainants objected to such proposal. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 were illegally not allowing the complainants to get the OD limits. It is the difference between the over draft against the FDs is that the interest on OD would be charged 1% higher than the FD rate. FD rates have fallen and accordingly the interest accumulation on the non renewal of OD limit the interest charges on OD limit by o.p. bank has been on the basis of earlier FD rate. In such manner the o.p. bank extorted money from the complainant. In the month of June the complainant requested a nationalized bank for credit facility but the said bank refused to provide credit facility due to adverse CIBIL report of the complainants. The entry of the name of the complainants in the CIBIL list was on the basis of wrong data. The reporting to CIBIL showing the complainants as defaulter for enjoying their own money was wrong yet o.ps. failed and neglected to fail to remove the wrongful and illegal posting made by them in the CIBIL website. In view of such the complainants prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to remove the names of the complainants from the CIBIL list and also compensation of Rs.5000/- per day and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated by ld. lawyer for o.p. nos.1 and 2 that the CIBIL is a credit information company within the meaning of Sec 2E of CICRA to commence or to carry on the business of credit information of India. Being a member of CIBIL the o.p. bank is obliged u/s 17 of CICRA to provide such credit information related to its borrowers as per the provisions laid down in CICRA. The incorporation of the name of the members of the CIBIL is not public information which can be used or enhanced to tarnish the image of any individual or borrower. In case of such dispute the same is to be settled as per the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. On the basis of the said fact the o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
It was stated that the bank as a credit institution lends to or allows OD facility as per the credit policy of the bank following certain norms procedures and formalities. The bank is well within its right to deny credit / OD to any borrower who declines to follow the said norms, procedure and formalities as required for such lending / OD. As the complainants refused to sign necessary documents required for sanction of the OD there were charges penal interest on their over draft and OD could not be renewed. At the time of closer of OD as per the request of the complainants the excess interest charge have already been reversed by the bank and this fact has been duly ascertained by the complainants. The OD limits were sanctioned after keeping 10% margin on the value of the fixed deposits of the complainants with the bank. Since the complainants refused to sign documents required for OD facility they were charged for penal interest. As the interest is applied on monthly basis, due to non servicing of the same, the balance in the said account exceeded the limit sanctioned as on 30.6.12. In the CBS system all the borrower account status for the bank as a whole is automatically extracted to be shared by CIBIL as per regularity instruction / bank’s lending policy norms. It is not public data base which can be viewed by all. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the complainants top question the internal data base which is maintained by the bank. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
It was stated by o.p. no.3 that the CICRA a credit information company make a correction, deletion or addition of the information only after such correction, deletion or addition has been certified as correct by the concerned credit institution. The case filed against o.p. no.3 is barred under the express provisions of Sec 30(1) of CICRA. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainants had fixed deposit in the o.p. bank.
- Whether the complainants enjoyed the OD facility.
- Whether the complainants failed to pay the outstanding dues and refused to sign the documents.
- Whether the excess interest charged by the bank was reversed to the account of the complainants.
- Whether the names of the complainants were included in the CIBIL list, if so had the o.p. bank committed any wrong.
- Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainants no.2 is an advocate and he had several fixed deposits in the o.p. bank and he enjoyed OD facility. The o.p. no.1 forced the complainants to put their signature on some stamp papers which the complainants refused to sign as resold of which the name of the complainants were included in the CIUBIL list. Since the complainants wanted to have loan from another bank and the sanctioning of loan was refused since the names of the complainants appeared in CIBIL list. Because of inclusion of the name of the complainants in the CIBIL list the status, dignity and prestige of the complainants have jeopardized for which the complainants filed this case praying for compensation as well as to remove the name of the complainants from the CIBIL list.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the o.p. bank are duty bound to inform the credit information in respect of its borrower as may be deemed necessary in accordance with provisions of CICRA. The inclusion of name in CIBIL is not accessible to the public in general. The information provided by the bank or by CIBIL is for the sole consumption of the members of CIBIL. The bank as a credit institutions lends or allowed OD facility as per the credit policy of the bank following certain norms, procedures and formalities. As the complainants refused to sign the necessary documents required for sanction of OD they were charged penal interest on their over draft and their ODs could not renewed. At the time of closer of OD, as per the request of the complainants, the excess interest charge have already been reversed by the bank and this fact has been duly ascertained by the complainants. The complainants have been continuously neglecting their bounden duty of complying with the bank’s request. In the CBS system all the bellowers account status for the bank as a whole is automatically extracted to be shared by CIBIL and therefore, o.ps. had no role to play in the inclusion of the name of the complainants in the CIBIL. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is admitted fact that the complainants had fixed deposit in the bank of o.p.no.1. It is also admitted fact that the complainants availed of OD facility in respect of the fixed deposits kept in the said bank. From the materials on record it is found that the complainants failed to follow the norms and procedure and formalities as required for lending / OD. As the complainants refused to sign the necessary documents required for sanction of OD they were charged penal interest on their overdraft and they ODs could not be renewed. It is an admitted fact that after the closer of ODs and on the basis of request of the complainants the excess interest charged were reversed by the bank and the same has been acknowledged by the complainants. It is the usual practice that in case of default of any borrower the bank is duty bound to provide the information to the o.p. no.3 and the name was automatically included in the CIBIL. Relationship between the complainant and o.p. nos.1 and 2 is creditor and debtor. Apart from the said fact it is crystal clear that the complainants made correspondences with the bank making wild allegations against the o.ps. even in the petition itself the unfounded allegations were leveled by the complainants. Since the o.p. bank charged interest for getting the OD facility and on failure to comply the norms by the complainants and accordingly with charging of interest the complainants became furious and made wild allegations against the o.ps. So far as the inclusion of the names of the complainant in the CIBIL list is concerned it is the incumbent duty upon the bank to provide credit information to o.p. no.3 as per Sec 17 of CICRA. In view of such facts we hold that the bank did not commit any illegality or there was any deficiency in service on the part of the bank on the contrary it is crystal clear that the attitude and gesture shown by the complainants to o.ps. cannot be supported and wehold that the o.ps. acted against the complainants in accordance with law and thereby we hold that the complainants will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.398/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
