Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/76

Bal Kishore Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Union Bank - Opp.Party(s)

shashi Bhusan

08 Feb 2022

ORDER

Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.P. to enhance his CIBIL score from 682 to 800 and to direct the O.P. Bank to pay Rs. 3,75,000/- as compensation and further to pay Rs. 15,000/- as harassment cost and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.

2       The case of the complainant in short is that he is sole owner of Vinayak Steel Works and engaged in manufacturing S.S. and M.S. Gate, Grill, Furniture etc., for which he is participating in contract work. Further case is that to obtain loan etc. he opened a current A/c No. 101/32161 in the name of his firm and another C.C. A/c No. 501/221 in his name in Union Bank, Jainamore Branch. Further case is that complainant deposited a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in his first account  to obtain the contract work and he also obtained loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Union Bank, Jaina More Branch who is regularly paying its interest. Further case is that when again complainant approached the Bank for grant of loan under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna then it was refused, thereafter, he mortgaged the fixed deposit papers and obtained Rs. 37,500/- as loan, which was adjusted from the maturity amount of time deposit and rest of its maturity amount was paid to the complainant. Further case is that in the given facts complainant proved himself a good customer and requested for enhancement of credit limit from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- which was not accepted in spite of fact that one Tarun has been provided loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Further case is that in spite of all above facts CIBIL score of the complainant was reduced by the Bank management to 682 which is required to 800 for a good borrower. Further case is that due to lower CIBIL score complainant is not being provided loan either by the O.P. bank or by other bank causing closer of his business and due to it his work orders have been canceled and his firm has been black listed causing loss to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000/-. Further case is that in spite of legal notice dt. 30.05.2018 CIBIL score has not been corrected hence it has compelled to file this case.

3       On issuance of notice, O.P. Bank appeared and has filed written version. As per O.P. apart from other ornamental please this case is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. who is not liable for CIBIL score. Further the O.P. has admitted the fact mentioned at para 1,2,3, and 4 of the complaint petition regarding running of business opening of the accounts etc. Further reply of the O.P. is that the complainant has obtained Rs. 50,000/- loan as cash credit on 23.09.2015 but till 06.09.2018 there was current balance of Rs. 46,00,6.94 to be paid by him and he again obtained loan of Rs. 37,500/- against his fixed deposit which has been adjusted later on. Further as per O.P. the complainant obtained cash credit loan of Rs. 50,000/- on 12.12.2017 for progress of the business but he could not complied the terms and conditions of the said loan nor has submitted desired statements rather he has submitted four different addresses of his business premises before the O.P. which shows that he is not serious about his business and he has not submitted information of this loan intentionally in the complaint petition. Further as per O.P. para 6 of the complaint petition is false rather CIBIL score preparation is not subject of any Branch Manager of any bank or Financial institution rather complainant is well aware that CIBIL is being prepared by Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. on the data of PAN of any person and as CIBIL CONSUMER CREDIT INFORMATION REPORT of Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. As on dt. 11/06/2018 the CIBIL score of the complainant is 682 for which Bank is not responsible. Further as per O.P. the complainant himself is fully responsible for closer of his business and there is no relation of it with this O.P. The Bank is having sole right to provide loan to any person of his performance for which complainant was not legible for high amount loan. Further as per O.P. the complaint has been intentionally filed against the Bank which is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4       Complainant has filed photo copy of following documents:-

   a) Photo copy of Legal Notice

   b) Copy of courier receipt

   c) Photo copy of application dt. 08.06.2015

   d) Photo copy of CIBIL score report

   e) Photo copy of letter dt. 04.04.2018 issued by Principal

        Polytechnique College along with its papers

   f) Photo copy of certificate dt. 29.06.2018 issued by the O.P.

      Bank.

   g) Photo copy of statement related to A/c No. 300705010000221

                                              

   h) Photo copy of statement related to A/c No. 300701010032161

                                          

 

5       Following papers have been filed by the O.P.

1) Copy of statement of account number 300705010000221

Annexure- A

2) Copy of statement related to A/c No. 300707030003351

                                                                                          Annexure-B

3) Copy of statement related to A/c No. 300706140200046

                                                                                          Annexure-c

4) Photo copy of paper related to CIBIL score of the complainant      

                                   

                                                                                                   Annexure-D

5) Copy of statement of account number 300702011004717

      Annexure- E

6) Copy of statement of account number 300703030091843

      Annexure- F

7) Photo copy of past inspection reports                    Annexure-G,H

8) Photo copy of loan application                                 Annexure-I

6                 On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that main question for consideration is that whether O.P. has intentionally lowered the CIBIL score of the complainant or not ? Whether O.P. is liable for lowered CIBIL score of the complainant ?

7                 As oral evidence complainant himself has examined as complainant witness No. 1 and he has repeated all the facts as mentioned in the complaint petition. On the other side the Branch Manager of the O.P. Bank has been examined as O.P. W-1 who has tried to establish the facts mentioned in the written version.

8                 During cross examination complainant states that he was not informed to furnish stock statement. Further he states that he never enquired from any bank officials regarding terms and conditions related to the matter. At para 22 he states that he is not remembering that from 01.12.2015 to 08.03.2016, from 13.05.2016 to 09.06.2016, from 08.08.2016 to 31.10.2016, from 03.12.2016 to 28.02.2017, from 11.07.2017 to 15.09.2017, from 22.12.2017 to 15.01.2018 and from 25.01.2018 to 06.09.2018 what amount he has deposited in the accounts he is not remembering. At para 23 he states that he is not knowing that where the office of CIBIL is situated nor he ever visited that very office nor made any correspondence with that very office. He further states that he has not written anywhere that Bank Manager is preparing CIBIL.

9                 On careful perusal of the statement of the complainant it appears that he has not proved the fact that O.P. is liable for poor CIBIL score. He has also not proved the fact that his poor CIBIL score is due to deficiency in service by the O.P. At this place we would like to mention here that CIBIL score is mathematical calculation based on performance of an account holder in respect to his credentials which are being maintained in the bank in respect to his accounts. There is no evidence on record to show that bank has purposely not mentioned or entered any amount deposited by the complainant on a particular date in respect to a particular account.

10              On the other hand the evidence of Branch Manager of O.P. bank shows that in respect to three loan accounts complainant was defaulter in two loan accounts. He further states at para 4 and 5 of his deposition that as per bank records complainant is graduate and having complete knowledge regarding any loan. Further he states that complainant never deposited the loan installments regularly. At para 6 he states that except the loan obtained by pledge of fixed deposit  complainant never deposited the interest amount of the loan accounts. At para 8 he states that complainant has intentionally  suppressed the fact related to third loan account. At para 14 he states that at all times of search by the Bank officials the firm of the complainant was found closed. In this way complainant himself is liable for poor CIBIL score. On court question he states that CIBIL score is not being prepared by the Bank rather it is being prepared by CIBIL institution in a automatic system and Bank is only generating statement from the CIBIL Authority.

11              On perusal of CIBIL score report submitted by the complainant and also submitted by the O.P. as annexure D it is disclosing the fact that three loan accounts have been opened by the complainant amongst  which he has paid and closed one account which was the loan against securities but two loan accounts have never been closed rather first loan account opened for Rs. 50,000/- is showing balance of Rs. 47,447/- and second loan account opened for Rs. 50,000/- is showing balance of Rs. 48,321/-. In this way it has been well proved by the oral as well as documentary evidence that the poor CIBIL score is the result of the performance of the complainant for which any other person cannot be held responsible.

12              We are also of the view that CIBIL score is being prepared and generated by “ CREDIT INFORMATION BUREAU (INDIA) LTD”.  In any view of the matter Bank is not responsible for preparation of poor CIBIL score except the cases in which there is wrong entry or no entry by the bank on receipt of the loan re-payment installment. Here in this case there is no such allegation against the O.P. The CIBIL preparing Authority has not been made party to this case which was necessary party.

13              Another glaring fact has to be mentioned here is that in the complaint petition complainant has not disclosed about third loan account. Such type of suppression or concealment of material fact shows that complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands.

14              In light of above discussion we are of the opinion that complainant has not proved any deficiency against the O.P. bank in respect  to preparation of CIBIL score. Accordingly, this case is being dismissed with cost.

                   This case is being dismissed with direction to the O.P. Bank concerned to assess the CIBIL score of the complainant and on filing fresh application of lose to consider it sympathetically by use of  discriminately power.