BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Vinod Vijay, House No.2124, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, SCO No.58-61, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

2]  The General Manager, Union Bank of India, 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Central Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21.

3]  Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (CIBIL), P.O. Box No.18, Millennium Business Park, Navi Mumbai-400710

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Manoj K.Tanwar, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-1 & 2.

           Sh.Animesh Sharma, Counsel for OP-3.

[PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant’s car loan application moved with State Bank of India, for an amount of Rs.3.50 lacs with rate of interest as 8% p.a., was refused vide Ann.-1 on the ground that “there is a business loan-general with an outstanding amount of Rs.3,02,435/- appearing in the CIBIL.” Ultimately, the complainant had to avail the loan of Rs.3.50 lacs from Punjab State Co-op. Bank at an interest rate of 11% p.a. (vide Ann.-2) instead of 8%, as offered by SBI. On contacting CIBIL, an e-mail dated 11.7.2010 (Ann.-3) was received by the complainant, whereupon he was shocked to find that his loan account with Union Bank of India has been shown as outstanding in their record, though it had already been cleared long back on 14.6.2008 (Ann.4). It is averred that the Union Bank of India did not supply the clearance details of said loan to CIBIL, therefore, the amount of Rs.3,02,435/- still stands as default against his name upto 11.7.2010. It is further averred that due to the above deficiency in service on the part of Union Bank of India (OPs No.1 & 2), in supplying the clearance detail of their loan to CIBIL, the complainant had to obtain car loan of Rs.3.50 lacs from Punjab State Co-op. Bank at 11% p.a. rate of interest instead of at the interest rate of 8% p.a., thereby causing him loss of Rs.513/- per month for five year (loan term), totaling to Rs.30,780/-, besides mental tension and great physical harassment.  The matter was taken with OP Bank vide Ann.-5, dated 03.08.2010 followed by reminder Ann.-6 & 8, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint, alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service due to which the complainant had to suffer mental agony, humiliation, harassment, financial loss and inconvenience.

2]       OPs No.1 & 2 (Union Bank of India) filed joint reply stating that the document annexed by the complainant is not refusal letter, but it is a letter seeking clarification about the business loan as well as statement of account about the liabilities. It is also stated that the complainant never answered the queries raised by State Bank of India, rather availed loan from another bank. The allegations as made in Para No.5 & 6 of the complainant that the amount of loan shown as outstanding by OP Bank, which was fully paid and adjusted on 14.6.2008 (Ann.-4), have been stated to be a matter of record.  It is asserted that when the complainant approached OP No.1 on 12.7.2010, the certificate was issued on the same day, within no time and also endorsed a letter to SBI regarding the said matter. Moreover, the answering OP had also reported to CIBIL regarding closure of the account as mentioned in CIBIL Report.  Therefore, if at all there is deficiency in service, it is on the part of CIBI and not on the part of answering OPs.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations of complainant, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.   

3]       OP-3 (CIBIL) also filed reply and submitted that information was supplied to the complainant as per the Rules & Regulations applicable to supplying information pertaining to Consumer CIR.  The information in the records of OP-3 supplied to the complainant was strictly, as per the information provided to it, by OP-2 Union Bank of India.  It is also submitted that it is the responsibility of Credit Institution  to submit updated, accurate and complete information to CIBIL and in this case also, Union Bank of India, has submitted the data to OP-3 and OP-3 has acted accordingly.  Denying any rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]       The ld.Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant wanted to avail car loan from State Bank of India at the rate of 8% p.a., but the same was denied vide Ann.C-1, because of the fault of Union Bank of India, who showed an outstanding loan amount against him and send the same information to CIBIL, though he had already cleared the loan account of Union Bank of India in the year 2008. He further argued that the complainant ultimately, had to avail the car from Punjab State Co-op. Bank at high interest rate of 11% p.a. instead of 8% p.a. as offered by S.B.I.

7]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 contended that the complainant was not refused any loan by S.B.I. Rather they sought clarification from him about his business loan as well as other the liabilities, which he did not reply and instead availed the loan from another bank.  It is also contended that when complainant contacted them, they issued him a certificate (Ann.4) mentioning therein that the loan sanctioned to him on 13.3.2008 has been fully adjusted and closed on 14.6.2008. Moreover, this was also intimated to CIBIL. Therefore, there was no deficiency on their part.

8]       We find merit in the contentions of ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.  Annexure-1 is a letter issued by the State Bank of India to the complainant in which at Para No.1, it is stated that “…………your application was not considered for sanction by sanctioning authority (RACPC) due to the following deficiencies/queries……………………”.  In the second and last para of this letter, it has been clearly mentioned by SBI that “Please provide the detail/statement of account in respect the above mentioned liabilities, so that the proposal can be resubmitted to sanctioning authority (RACPC) for consideration of sanction.”

9]       It clearly proves that the loan of complainant has not been rejected by SBI. Rather they sought clarification/information/details from the complainant.  But, the complainant himself has not clarified/settled the matter with SBI and instead approached another bank to avail the loan.     

10]      Moreover, the OPs vide their letters dated 12.7.2010, 26.8.2010 and 10.9.2010 (Ann.4, R-3 & R-4) respectively, had also intimated the complainant that his loan account has already been closed and the CIBIL report is also not showing any overdues. 

11]      From the above documents, it is proved that S.B.I. has not rejected the loan application of the complainant, but sought some clarification, which complainant did not supply. The OPs No.1 & 2 had already closed his loan account in the year 2008, which is clear from Ann.4, R-3 & R-4. Hence, there was no fault or deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 & 2.  The complainant availed the loan from another bank at his own level.

12]      As regards OP No.3 (CIBIL), the complainant is not a consumer qua it nor have any direct dealing with it. 

13]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency on the part of OPs. The complaint is meritless.  The same is accordingly dismissed.  

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.