Order no. 27  dt.  06/12/2016

       The case of the complainants in brief is that they were maintaining a savings bank account with Syndicate Bank. The complainants kept fixed deposits and used to enjoy the overdraft facility from the said bank in the year 2007. In 2008 the complainants closed the account. In June 2012 the complainants requested a nationalized bank for a credit facility but he was not allowed to enjoy the said facility since his name was recorded in CIBIL. The complainants thereafter took up the matter with o.ps. and in spite of having settlement of all loan dues the name of the complainant no.1 was incorporated in CIBIL wrongly. The o.ps. during pendency of the CC Case No.98/2010 filed a suit before the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division 10^th Court, Alipore. By filing the suit against the complainants for which the complainants are suffering. On the basis of the fact and circumstances as stated above, the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for removal of the name of the complainant no.1 from the CIBIL site and also for removal of the name of the complainants from the list of wrongfully classified NPA and also prayed for compensation of Rs.5000/- per day and litigation cost.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is barred by limitation as per Sec. 24 of the C.P. Act and the complainant has not been filed within two years of the alleged occurrence of the claim which was admittedly occurred on 2.4.08. The complainant filed this case after the period of five years and accordingly the same is barred by limitation. It was stated that the name of the complainant no.1 was appearing in the CIBIL website since 2007. Under such circumstances the same should be legally presumed that the complainants had the knowledge of the same. It was also denied by the o.ps. that the appearance of the name of the complainant no.1 in the CIBIL list is due to causing of willful harm or damage to the reputation and goodwill of the complainants. Since the complainants were defaulter in respect of other loans, as such a name suit was filed and the same is pending for disposal. The o.ps. denied that there was not a single rupee default at any point of time, as it was claimed by the complainants. So far as the name of the complainant has been deleted from the CIBIL list in respect of the overdraft facility which was subsequently repaid but the complainants are defaulter in respect of the other loan. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainants were defaulter in payment of loan amount.
2. Whether the name of the complainants were wrongly recorded in the CIBIL list.
3. Whether the complainant 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 themselves argued that in spite of payment of the entire dues to the o.ps. the name of the complainant no.1 was inserted in the CIBIL list for which the complainants had to file this case. It was further argued by the complainant that because of incorporation of the name in the CIBIL list he was not provided loan by any other bank and accordingly it was emphasized by the complainant no.1 that due to such mischievous action taken by o.ps. the complainants have suffered and for that purpose the complainants had to file this case praying for deletion of name of the complainant from the CIBIL list as well as for compensation and litigation cost.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the name of the complainant no.1 was incorporated in the year 2007-08 and the case was filed in the year 2013 i.e. long five years after the said incorporation of the name of the complainant no.1 in the CIBIL list, therefore the case is barred by limitation. Since the case was not filed within two years and no permission was sought for u/s 24A of C.P. Act the case is not maintainable. Ld. lawyer emphasized that the overdraft facility was enjoyed by the complainants and which was repaid by the complainants and accordingly his name was deleted from the CIBIL list. It was also emphasized by ld. lawyer for o.ps. that the complainants took the house building loan and for non payment of the loan o.ps. had to file a suit in Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division 10^th Court, Alipore and in order to prove the same o.ps. filed the copy of the plaint as well as the written statement filed by the complainants in that suit. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above ld. lawyer prayed argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. and since the complaint filed by the complainants is barred by limitation and as such, ld. lawyer for o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainants filed cases one after another against the o.ps. and the complainants filed the instant case against the o.ps. for inclusion of the name of the complainant no.1 in the CIBIL list and the said inclusion was made in the year 2007-08 and the case was filed long after the five years from the date of actual cause of action arose. It is relevant to mention here that the case was filed without seeking leave from this Forum u/s 24A of C.P. Act. Apart from the said fact the complainants took house building loan but the said loan amount was also noit paid for which the bank had to file a suit pending before Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division 10^th Court, Alipore. The complainants were informed from time to time regarding the dues to the bank but the complainants did not take any action. Since the complainant failed to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions of the loan the bank could not be held liable for deficiency in service as has been held in Bero Cold Storage vs. UCO Bank through Chairman and others. The complainants stated that they were refused the loan in the year 2007-08 for which they sought for relief against the o.ps. by filing this case. Considering the materials on record we hold that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation and 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.262/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.  

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.