Aswini Kumar Patra ,President  

1. This Complaint is filed  by the complainant named above inter alia alleging  negligence & deficiency in service on the part of the Ops for reflecting bad score in CIBIL Report in spite of “No Dues Certificate “ issued  to the complainant receiving on payment of the entire loan amount in time.
2.  The complainant seeks for an order directing the Ops to regularize the loan account and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony & loss of business reputation including cost of this litigation.
3. Briefs facts of  the complainant as emerged from the complainant petition & documents filed there with is that , the complainant is one of the business man having one trades namely Maa Danteswari Trades deals with seasonal goods like paddy, rice, green gram, Mahua flower etc..The complainant availed a tractor loan from the Ops-1/Bank vide loan Account No.1135521380 in the year 2004 but due to some monetary problem could not repay the loan in time for which he opt for one time settlement (OTS) .Accordingly, OTS is made at Rs.254,000/- and the complainant  and got ready to deposit 25% i.e. Rs.63500/- only rest amount was to be paid within 31^st March,2013. The agreed amount is deposited by the complainant. Accordingly the Ops issued one certificate mentioning there in that “The petitioner who has availed loan bearing No.1135521380 has been closed by compromise since dt.30.03.2015”.  However, loan account is not closed in the system due to banks technical problem. On being enquired to his CIBIL score the complainant came to know that, due to non-clearance of the loan amount in the system of CIBIL score report has shown very low for which the business reputation  got disrupted and the complainant suffered business loss & mental agony .
4. It is further stated that,the complainant made an application to the OP-1/ bank on 2.1.2018 mentioning that, due to non closure of the loan account by the bank authority ,his CIBIL score became low, about which the complainant came to know from Trance Union, CIBIL on 7.11.2017 but the OP/bank  has not responded . Thereafter the complainant has personally approached the Op/Bank to regularize his loan account but it is not responded. On 5.2.2019 for the last time when the complainant enquired his CIBIL score, got surprised that instead of cleared up the loan ,his CIBIL score report has been increased to 556 only for which the complainant suffered business loss & mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
5. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the photocopy of the following documents:-

1. One Application given to the Chief Manager, SBI, Dharamgarh Branch,
2. True copy of two Nos. of Bankers Cheque dt.22.3.2014, in the name of the Chief Manager, SBI, Dharamgarh Branch,
3. One copy of Clearance certificate, issued by the Chief Manager in favour of the Applicant/Petitioner on dt.30.08,2017,

(iv) One copy of petition given by the petitioner to the Chief Manager, SBI, Dharamgarh by requestingfor terminating loan amount to obtain the CIBIL Score on dt.2.1.2018.

6. On being notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their learned advocate Shri S.K.Mund and filed written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.
7. The Ops in their written version has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the complaint petition on the ground that, the complainant has availed a tractor loan for business purpose from the SBI, Dharamgarh/Op-1 by executing all required documents there in the loan agreement and not for earning of his livelihood by means of his self employment. It is further submitted that due to default of payment of loan dues and on being asked for compromise the OP/ bank  agreed for “one time settlement” but the complainant has deposited agreed amount after lapse of time fixed in the compromise violating the terms & condition of the said  compromise. However, on humanitarian ground the Bank has accepted the amount and has issued ” No Dues Certificate” but “One Time Settlement” once availed by the complainant than the payment will be reflected in the CIBIL report as “Bad Debt” and there is nothing to do  on the part of the Ops .
8. The Ops further submitted that, score reflected in CIBIL is by  a separate agency authorized by RBI as such the Ops have  no authority to closed the dues as because the “Bad Debt dues” will be reflected in CIBIL report which  will take time  to clear from the books of the account of the OP/ bank. Thereafter, as per term & condition of the CIBIL agency the “Bad Debt due” will be totally cleared from the CIBIL report. It is further submitted that, CIBIL agency is a necessary party in this case as such complaint is bad for non joinder of party need to be rejected. It is further submitted that, the OP bank authority has never violated any term & condition of the loan as  compromise  made between the parties. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops towards valued customer/complainant. The complainant is not entitle for the relief(s) as claimed rather,the complaint  is liable to be dismissed with cost as this complaint has got no merit and there is no cause of action made out against the Ops.
9. To substantiate their claim the Ops has filed the statement of account vide loan account No.11355921380 there in the name of Sunil Kumar Agrawal  where it is mentioned that, loan account write up on 29.9.2017.
10. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all documents filed by both the parties, the point for consideration before this Commission is that, whether there is any deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for reflecting low score in the CIBIL report shown against the complainant ?
11. Section 38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 cast an obligation on the District Commission to decide a complaint on the basis of evidence brought into notice by the complainant and the service provide/seller , irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission   has to be based on the evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
12. Here in this case though sufficient opportunities has been  availed for hearing and to adduce their evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act,2019 to substantiate their respective claim here in this case ,neither the complainant nor the Ops have lead their evidence on affidavit as prescribed. Even the complaint averment is not supported by any affidavit of the complainant to be considered as evidence.
13. Admittedly, the complainant has availed tractor loan vide account No.11355921380 for business purpose and got defaulted in repayment of loan in time opt for OTS on compromise but failed to deposit the certain amount in time as per OTS compromise. However, the OP 1/bank has received the agreed amount as settled in the OTS compromise though it was in late and latter on issued “No Dues Certificate” in humanitarian ground against the loan but the CIBIL agency which is an independent / separate agency authorized by the RBI has accepted it as a “Bad Debt “and reflected in its CIBIL report , for which the Ops are no way responsible  rather, it is caused due to default on the part of the complainant. It is ascertained form the copy of account statement placed on the record by the Ops that , the loan account vide No.11355921380 of the complainant is closed on 29.9.2017 being the loan account “write up”.
14. No evidence on affidavit as prescribed in C.P.Act 2019 is adduced by the complainant. The photo copy of documents filed by the complainant as per list along with his complainant petition without authenticated by fundamental evidence that, the photo copy is in fact a true copy of the original may not be accepted as evidence,(Reliance placed on the ratio of judgement of Honourable Supreme Court in M.CHANDRA Vrs. M. Thangamuthu & another ,reported in 2010(ii) CLR (SC) 746 :(2010) 9 SCC 712 ) .
15. Law is well settled that, mere pleading shall not construe evidence and it may not be taken as evidence. Here, the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to substantiate his claim. The complainant proved nothing to hold that, he is a consumer of the ops comes under C.P.Act  and  that, the Ops are negligent & deficiency in service in any manner .
16. Based on above discussion, we found no negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Hence, it is order.

  ORDER

        This complaint is dismissed on contest against the Ops, however   no order as to cost and compensation. Pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

        Dictated and corrected by me.

                         Sd/-

                     President

         I   agree.

     Sd/-                         

Member                                                                

Pronounced in open Commission today on this  31st  day of May 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

        The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and  free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission