By: Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant and his near relative named Yousuf Ali decided to purchase a lorry for their livelihood. With the financial help of the first opposite party, an Eicher Tipper lorry bearing No.KL 10 AN 7020 was purchased by the complainant. In order to purchase the above said vehicle, the complainant sold out his old lorry. According the complainant the officials of first opposite party came to the residence and collected many signatures of the complainant on printed forms and on book form containing so many blank records. The officials of the opposite party also collected 28 signed blank cheque leaves of the complainant, copy of election identity card, signed stamp paper. They were also collected signature of one of the relative and a friend of the complainant for disbursing loan amount. The first opposite party granted Rs.10,00,000/- as loan to purchase the lorry and the said amount along with interest has to be repaid in 47 monthly installments to the opposite party. It is stated by the complainant that Rs.29,000/- in stipulated as each monthly installment and loan amount was disbursed on 12/03/2013. The loan repayment period was from 10/04/2013 to 10/02/2017. It was alleged in the complaint that the amount paid by the complainant was adjusted to other accounts by the first opposite party and so loan due amount was increased day by day. As a result, the complainant paid the installment with much hardship. On enquiry it was revealed from the first opposite party that interest rate of the loan was 24% flat rate and installments paid was adjusted to additional hire charges, inspection etc. According to the complainant the first opposite party demanded more amounts in the name of additional hire charges, notice charges, inspection charges, which are not inclusive as per loan agreement.
2. It was stated in the complaint that the first opposite party even threatened of seizing of vehicle. So when the complainant attempted to avail another loan it was found that the first opposite registered the loan details with the second opposite party and CIBIL rating was not seen good. Thus the complainant could not secure another loan and also forced close the loan as demanded by the first opposite party. The complainant remitted entire loan amount as demanded by the first opposite party on 05/04/2017 and hire purchase termination letters were issued on 06/04/2017. According to the complainant, even though loan amount was Rs.9,96,386/- actual disbursed amount was Rs.9,67,386/- after collecting Rs.29,000/- through demand draft from the actual figure. The complainant received only Rs.9,67,386/- as loan amount but instead the first opposite stated loan amount as Rs.9,96,386/-. According to the complainant the actual received loan amount was Rs.9,67386/- but he repaid Rs.13,58,252/- as both principal amount and interest . The opposite party collected Rs.94,733/- as additional hire charges for the loan. The first opposite party collected Rs.3,61,867/-as interest alone. The complainant contended that the additional hire charges were collected stating many charges under different heads and the same was illegal. The complainant submitted that he was forced to repay the entire amount in order to close the loan. It is stated in the complaint that the loan particulars were registered in the website of the first opposite party so as to compel the complainant to close the loan after making payment of higher amount so the publication in the web site would rather complicate the CIBIL rating managed by the second opposite party as a result which would be become hurdle to secure another loan from any financial institution. The complainant stated that the total amount of availed loan added with agreed rate of interest were divided in to 47 installments. It means the each installment represented the principal amount plus entire interest on flat basis till the last date of payment. Before last due date, the complainant remitted entire amount and loan was closed. According to the complainant, the opposite party collected Rs.94,733/- as additional hire charges and the same is illegal and should refunded to the complainant. According to the complainant before the closing of the loan, he had approached many financial institution to get another loan but failed due to then existed CIBIL rating. It is stated that the records kept by the second opposite party denoted the complainant as a defaulter, though repayment of the entire loan amount was made out. So complainant contacted the first opposite party to lift the CIBIL rating. It contended that even after closing of the loan the same was not intimated to the second opposite party. As result, the complainant could not avail loan from any financial institution in order to purchase another vehicle. This situation put the complainant in irreparable loss and damages. The complainant alleged that canara bank denied a loan due to low CIBIL score of the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant lost Rs.94,733/- due to deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. The financiers are also demanding huge rate of interest to another loan. The opposite parties are bound to pay compensation and hence the complaint filed. The complainant prayed for an order to direct the first opposite party to repay Rs.94,733/- with interest and also direct the second opposite party to cancel CIBIL adverse remark from the website on the transaction with the first opposite party regarding vehicle No.KL10 AN 7020. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties with cost of the proceedings.
3. The complaint admitted on file and issued notices to the opposite parties. The first opposite party appeared and filed version. The second opposite party called absent and set exparte on 04/05/2018. On 30/05/2018 the second opposite party filed IA 306/2018 to set aside the exparte order and same was allowed by the commission. Then the second opposite party also filed version.
4. The first opposite party denied the contentions raised by the complainant. According to the first opposite party the complaint lack bonofide, suppressing real fact and also not maintainable either in law or on fact. Hence complaint was liable to be dismissed. It was stated in the version that complainant was not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship between the opposite party and the complainant was that of debtor and creditor based on a contract. The first opposite party also challenged the allegation of deficiency of service in the complaint and contended that the defined term of deficiency of service under Consumer Protection Act would not attract in this case.
The first opposite party stated that the complainant approached for availing a loan of Rs.9,96,386/- to purchase a lorry. The complainant produced documents and the first opposite party agreed to provide the loan. On 12/03/2013 loan agreement was executed between the first opposite party and the complainant and one Skeena.P stood as co-applicant. It is submitted by the first opposite party that the complainant agreed to repay the said loan of Rs.9,96,386/- with interest thereon by 47 monthly installments of Rs.28,899/- each commencing from 10/04/2013 to ending on 10/02/2017 as mentioned in the repayment schedule . According to the first opposite party this commission got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as per agreement executed in case of any dispute arising out of the said agreement there is specific clause for arbitration proceedings at Chennai for resolving the same . It is not true that the officials of the first opposite party gone to the house of the complainant and collected some signed documents including blank cheque leaves, printed forms , blank singed papers as stated in the complaint. The first opposite party never accept any blank signed cheque leaves or blank signed papers from any customer. It is not true that the opposite party granted Rs.10,00,000/- as loan to purchase the lorry. The first opposite party granted an amount of Rs.9,96,386/- with interest thereon by 47 monthly installments of Rs.28,899/- commencing from 10/04/2013 to 10/02/2017. The loan was disbursed on 12/03/2013 and the loan payment was started from 10/04/2013 to 10/02/2017 by monthly installment was correct. According to the first opposite party the hardship of the complainant for repayment of the loan amount was unknown and the amount paid by the complainant was properly accounted. It is contended that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in repayment of loan and so penal interest was also accounted in to the loan account. According to the first opposite party if the installment amount was not paid in proper time the penal interest would be accounted in to the loan account as per the loan agreement. The opposite party never seized the vehicle and only legally demanded due amount from the complainant. It is admitted by the first opposite party that the financial institutions are intimating loan status to the CIBIL as per the regulations and circulars. It was not only against the complainant but also against all the customers correct details were uploading in to CIBIL and same is mandatory. The first opposite party had no knowledge about the denial of loan application by other financial institutions. It is stated in the version that 24% flat rate was not calculated against the complainant, but in fact 9.28% was calculated for the loan amount. The complainant did not pay any excess amount but he taken a waiver of Rs.71,677/- from the principal amount. It is also admitted by the first opposite party that the complainant settled the loan amount for Rs.2,10,000/- instead of the actual balance amount of Rs.4,14,030/- by waiving Rs.2,04,030/- and issued NOC to the complainant. It is also a fact that the amount waived will be reflected in the reports from the first opposite party to the second opposite party. The other calculation made in the complaint was false. The complainant never paid a total amount of Rs.13,58,253/- towards principal loan amount and Rs.3,61,867/- as additional hire charges. As per the version, the first opposite party did not collect Rs.3,61,867/- as the interest alone and Rs.94,733/- collected as additional hire charges from the complainant. In fact all additional charges and interests are waived to the complainant and settled for less capital amount. The first opposite party never forced the complainant to close the loan amount by reporting loan details with second opposite party. The complainant closed the amount for lesser amount. The CIBIL score rating was not under the control of the first opposite party but it depended upon the all over performance of the complainant towards the financial institution from where he advanced the amount and also on his repayment methods. The second opposite party is an independent autonomous body and the first opposite party has no role for deciding the rating of CIBIL score of a person. The complainant availed the loan on flat interest and not as diminishing. It is utter false that the first opposite party collected Rs.94,733/- as interest on interest as additional hire charges and so not liable to refund anything . The complainant was a chronic defaulter and the loan amount given to the complainant was termed in to NPA. The first opposite party has no role in other banks’ refusal of loan to the complainant. The opposite parties had not made gross deficiency in service to the complainant and not made any irreparable loss and hardship. The complainant lost Rs.94,733/- due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties was not correct. It is also contended that the first opposite party was put to suffer huge loss and hardship due to the non-payment of the loan installment by the complainant.
5. According to the first opposite party there was no cause of action for filing this complaint. In the month of March 2017 the defaulted payment was accumulated to the tune of Rs.4,14,030/-, in which Rs.2,81,677/- as EMI, Rs.97,994/- as additional finance change , Rs.2,500/- as cheque bounce charge, Rs.470/- as FVC, Rs.27,158/- as legal charges. Out of the above stated amount 25% of the EMI (that comes to the tune of Rs.71,677/-) and 100% of AFC, CBC, FVC, Legal charges waived to the complainant (all together Rs.2,04,036).The loan amount of the complainant was closed for the most least amount of Rs.2,10,000/- for the full satisfaction of the complainant. The waived EMI is reflected in the CIBIL Report. There was no mental agony or difficult caused to the complainant. The first opposite party was an unwanted party in this proceedings contended in the version. According to the first opposite party the prayer in the complaint cannot be allowed and the complainant is not entitled to get compensation or cost of the proceedings.
6. The second opposite party filed separate version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is to be dismissed. According to the second opposite party the Commission does not have the required jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues / grounds raised by the complainant against the second opposite party. It is contended in the version that the second opposite party is functioning as a credit information company under the provisions the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 read with Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Rules ,2006. It is doing the business of storing , retrieving compiling, collating , collecting , processing and maintaining a data base of Credit Information relating to both individuals and entities of all types whether in corporated or not for the use of banks, financial institutions etc dealing with distribution of credit submitted to the second opposite party by banks/ financial institutions. Furnishing of the Credit Information is strictly to a closed user group of members, individuals and the specified users as permitted / required under the provisions of CICRA and the Rules and the Regulation made under. It is stated that under section 18 and 31 this commission does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. As per section 18, CICRA is a special and subsequent legislation (enacted in 2005) shall prevail over the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (enacted in 1986). It is also stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the second opposite party and complainant was not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The second opposite party also contended that it does not carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain in Malappuram, nor has any cause of action as alleged otherwise arisen against the second opposite party within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. As per the provision of ‘CICRA’ accompanied with its rules and regulations, the second opposite party is issuing the Credit Information Report (CIR) which is contained aggregated Information of respective individual/ entity that is submitted by respective credit institution. The CIR is in a standard format and the second opposite party does not create information or provide inputs thereon of its own. The second opposite party is helping the credit grantors/ member credit institutions to access the CIR by which a complete history of the credit applicant’s credit record spread over different institutions is available to the credit grantors. The CIR merely reflects the information submitted to the second opposite party by its member credit institution as required under the CICRA and rules & regulations made there under. So it is contended by the second opposite party that any rectification in the data base of Credit Information can only be made in accordance with the provisions of section 21(3) of the CICRA which states that a credit information company like the second opposite party can make a correction deletion or addition of the credit information only after such correction, deletion or / addition has been certified as correct by the concerned Credit Institution . So any unilateral correction of the credit information as sought by the complainant would be penalizing the second opposite party. It is also stated that the second opposite party is not responsible for the accuracy , completion and veracity of any of the information reported / submitted by the member Credit institution and responsibility lies with the reporting institution as per the CICRA and rules and regulations made there under .As per the version the second opposite party is neither a proper nor a necessary party in this proceedings and if any relief is granted to the complainant this second opposite party under statutory obligation to make changes in the credit information. The second opposite party produced decision of Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its judgment dated 27/02/2017 in S. Reghukumar VS M/S Canara Bank of C.C.No.34/2016 has the Hon’ble Forum agreed with the second opposite party’s submission that it has been impleaded as an unnecessary party to the proceedings and adjudged that the second opposite party can only be treated as a Performa party and no relief can be granted against second opposite party . It is also contended that as per S.31 of CICRA no suit or other legal proceedings can inter alia lie against second opposite party for anything done by it in good faith or in pursuance of CICRA or any other law for the time being in force. It is also stated by the second opposite party that the complainant has not provided any details of the loan amount or any of its personal identifying details which would enable the second opposite party to identify the complainant on its data base and no communication was made out between the second opposite party and the complainant with regard to alleged loan transaction. According to the second opposite party it does not give a CIBIL rating, but a CIBIL score. The CIBIL score is a 3 digit numeric summary of a person’s credit history for the past 24 months. The score is delivered by using the details found in the “accounts” and “Enquiries” sections on a CIR and ranges from 300 to 900. The CIBIL score appearing CIR is derived on the basis of details appearing in that particular CIR as reported by various credit institutions. The second opposite party did not commit deficiency of service and there was no irreparable loss and damage to the complainant. So the second opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
7. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits. The complainant and the first opposite party produced documents to support their respective contentions made in the complaint as well the version. The documents filed by the complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 document is the copy of certificate of registration of vehicle No. KL 10 AN 7020 issued in favour of the complainant. Ext. A2 document is the copy of account statement of the complainant showing the transaction between 05/03/2013 to 20/11/2017 issued by the first opposite party. Ext. A3 document is the copy of Aadhaar card issue to the complainant by the unique Identification Authority of India. Ext .4 document is the copy of pan card of the complainant issued by Income Tax Department, Govt of India. The first opposite party also produced one document and marked as Ext. B1 document. Ext. B1 is the account statement of the complainant showing the transaction between 05/03/2013 to 20/11/2017. The first opposite party filed a questionnaire as IA 622/2018 to get answered by the complainant. The complainant also filed reply by answering the questionnaire of the first opposite party.
8. Heard both sides. Perused documents and affidavits including questionnaire and answers. The points arised for the consideration of the commission are :-
- Whether the opposite parties are committed any kind of deficiency in service towards the complainant .
- Relief and cost.
9. Point No.1 and 2
As per the submission of the complainant he purchased a lorry for his livelihood with the financial assistance of the first opposite party. The complainant stated that he availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the first opposite party and the same has to be repaid in 47 monthly installments to the first opposite party and each installments carries Rs.29,000/- each. The complainant availed the loan on 12/03/2013. The loan repayment period started from 10/04/2013 and would end on 10/02/2017. According to the complainant repayment was done with much hardship but installments were adjusted to other account by the first opposite party. The first opposite party demanded more money for closing the loan. So the complainant was forced to remit the entire due amount on 05/04/2017 as the loan particulars were uploaded in the website of the opposite party. According to the complainant the CIBIL rating maintained by the second opposite party became hurdle to avail another loan from other financial institutions. So complainant prayed for a direction to lift the CIBIL rating as the loan was already closed. But in the version and affidavits of the first opposite party, it was contended that the complainant was chronic defaulter in repayment of installments. It is stated that actual balance amount of the loan was Rs.4,14,030/- and after waiving Rs.2,04,030/- the complainant was permitted to remit Rs.2,10,000/- to settle the due amount . The complainant produced Ext. A2 document to show the entire transaction between himself and first opposite party. The first opposite party also produced same document and marked as Ext. B1 document. It is admitted by the complainant as well as the first opposite party that the repayment of the loan was fixed in 47 installment commencing from 10/04/2013 to 10/02/2007. So while examining Ext. A2 and Ext. B1 documents (Both are same) it can be seen that the repayment of loan was not properly remitted as undertaken by the complainant. Moreover it was also admitted by the complainant that the entire due amount paid on 05/04/2017. As per the available evidence, the complainant has to be remitted the due amount on or before 10/02/2017. The contention of the first opposite party that the complainant was a chronic defaulter not denied by the complainant in his affidavit.
10. The complainant prayed for an order directing the second opposite party to cancel the adverse remarks from the website regarding the transaction with first opposite party. According to the complainant he has denied of loan from other financial institutions due to the rating of the second opposite party. Even after the closing of loan on 05/04/2017 the CIBIL rating was not lifted, the complainant alleged. In the version it is contended by the first opposite party that financial institutions are intimating the loan status to CIBIL and it is mandatory as per regulations and circulars. According to the first opposite party the complainant was a defaulter and so the penal interest was accounted in to the loan account of the complainant. The second opposite party in the version and affidavit it was categorically stated that it was issuing the Credit Information Report which is contained aggregated information of a respective individual or entity that is submitted by the respective Credit Institution. So the Credit Information Report reflects the information submitted to the second opposite party by its members Credit Institution, like the first opposite party. So that as per section 21(3) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation Act, 2005) the second opposite party can make a correction , deletion or addition of the Credit Information only after such correction , deletion or addition has been certified as correct by the concerned Credit Institution. So this Commission finds that being defaulter, the complainant cannot insist the second opposite party to remove the details of loan transaction which was embedded as per the statute. The above said Act was introduced to arrest accretion of non-performing assets, its management in the banking sector through an efficient system of Credit Information on borrower as a first step in credit risk management. In this juncture the Commission finds no reason interfering in the functioning of the second opposite party.
11. It is alleged by the complainant that the officials of the first opposite party collected so many signatures on many blank documents and papers and even collected 28 blank signed cheque leaves from the complainant. This accusation was denied by the first opposite party in the version as well as in the affidavit. The complainant failed to bring evidence before the Commission on this aspect. Even no details of blank cheque leaves were mentioned in the complaint or affidavit. In the ordinary course of loan transaction, there would be execution of documents and in this case the complainant did not make any allegation of misuse of documents signed by the complainant or surety of the complainant.
12. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant availed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and in another part loan amount shown as Rs.9,96,386/-. It is further stated that actual disbursed amount was Rs.9,67,386/- after collecting Rs.29,000/- through demand draft from actual figure by the opposite party. But in the version and affidavit filed by the first opposite party the loan figure was stated as Rs. 9,96,386/- and Ext. A2 and Ext. B1 documents clearly favour the statement of the first opposite party . The complainant alleged that the amount paid by him also adjusted to other accounts. But the complainant did not produce details of accounts before this Commission. The complainant produced Ext. A2 account statement, but not challenged the contents in it. According to the complainant there was demand for more amounts in the name of additional hire charges, notice charges, inspection charges which are not inclusive as per loan agreement and he was compelled to pay the entire amount as demanded by the first opposite party . But the complainant could not produce loan agreement before the Commission and no steps was taken to get availed the same. There was no evidence on record to show that complainant was forced to settle the loan and attempt of seizure of vehicle was made by the first opposite party.
13. The contentions of the second opposite party that as per section 18 and 31 of CICRA the commission does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter finds no merit while considering the evidences of the case. The complainant has got every right to approach the commission to get redressed his grievances as he comes under the purview of definition of Consumer in the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover in paragraph 16 of the version filed by the second opposite party it is conceded that if the commission direct the complainant to provide them with personal identifying details to enable the identity of the complainant on its data base and thereby address the grievance of the complainant. More over the arbitration clause does not prevent the complainant to adopt the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. So the attempt made to challenge on the jurisdiction aspect finds no merit in this case. The second opposite party said in the version that the details of CIR or any other additional information like the date of birth , pan number etc were not provided to the second opposite party by the complainant . This pleadings finds merit as there was no evidence produced by the complainant to show that details of required documents were produced to the second opposite party by the complainant to address the grievance. There is no scope for entertaining the prayer in the version of the first opposite party that to make an order to pay Rs.94,733/- with interest from the complainant as the transaction between the parties had already settled and there is no chance for go back.
14. Evaluating the entire evidences adduced by the both parties the Commission convinced that there is no merit in the complaint, relief sought by the complainant as it stands abortive and hence dismissed the complaint.
Dated this 28th day of October , 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1: copy of certificate of registration of vehicle No. KL 10 AN 7020 issued in favour of the complainant.
Ext.A2: copy of account statement of the complainant sharing the transaction between 05/03/2013 to 20/11/2017 issued by the first opposite party.
Ext A3: copy of Aadhaar card issue to the complainant by the unique Identification Authority of India.
Ext A4: copy of the pan card of the complainant issued by Income Tax Department,
Govt of India.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1
Ext.B1: the account statement of the complainant showing the transaction between
05/03/2013 to 20/11/2017.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
