Kerala

StateCommission

CC/16/34

S REGHUKUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

CC. NO. 34/16

 JUDGMENT DATED:27.02.207

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

S. Reghukumar, Advocate,

S. Reghukumar & Associates,

Sree Bharathy, L-6, Jawahar Nagar,                             : COMPLAINANT

Kowdiar, TVPM-695 003.

 

            Vs.

1. M/s Canara Bank,

Circle Office, Statue,

TVPM-695 001. R/by its-

General Manager.

 

2. M/s Canara Bank,

Sasthamangalam Branch,

Sasthamangalam P.O,

TVPM-695 010. R/by its

Chief Manager.

 

3. The Chief Manager,                                                           : OPPOSITE PARTIES

M/s Canara Bank,

Sasthamangalam Branch,

Sasthamangalam P.O,

TVPM-695 010.

(By Adv for OPs 1 to 3 : Sri. E. Sulficker)

4. Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL),

Hoechst House, 6^th floor,

193 Backbay Reclamation,

Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.

 

(By Adv: Sri. K.G. Mohandas Pai)

 

                                   

JUDGMENT

 

HON. JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATHALI  :  PRESIDENT

 

 

This is a complaint filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- and a cost of Rs.25000/- for the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the 2^nd opposite party M/s Canara Bank on May 23, 2002.  With the said loan, a Maruti 800 car was purchased bearing registration No.KL-01-Y-623. Hypothecation was endorsed on the certificate of registration of the vehicle.  This loan was closed by the complainant on April 30, 2008 and the endorsement on the certificate of registration was also cancelled.  Complainant has also taken another vehicle from the Christ Nagar Branch of M/s Vijaya Bank on December 2, 2010 which was closed on December 31, 2015.  On December 8, 2015 when he approached the said branch of Vijaya Bank, Manager told him that he was a defaulter of loan availed from M/s Canara Bank, Sasthamangalam branch as per the Consumer Credit Information Report of CIBIL.  In the print out from the CIBIL website it is seen that complainant was shown as a debtor to the 2^nd opposite party.  The said print out shows that Rs.71,463/- is due to the 2^nd opposite party bank which was actually closed by the complainant showing the complainant as a defaulter amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- and a cost of Rs.25,000/-.

3.      First opposite party is M/s Canara Bank circle office, Thiruvananthapuram.  Second opposite party is the Sasthamangalam branch of M/s Canara Bank represented by its Chief Manager.  Third opposite party is the Chief Manager of the bank.  Fourth opposite party is the Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL), Bombay.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 in their version contended that when the complaint of the complainant was received, steps were taken to cancel the hypothecation.  No adverse report has been made by this opposite parties to the CIBIL.  As soon as complaint of the complainant was received, steps were taken for cancellation of hypothecation and also to correct the report of the CIBIL.  No loss is caused to the complainant.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Fourth opposite party in its version denied the allegations in the complaint and contended that 4^th opposite party is an unnecessary party in these proceedings.

5.      Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.      It is admitted that complainant availed loan from the 2^nd opposite party bank for the purchase of his vehicle on May 23, 2002 which was closed on April 30, 2008 by the complainant and the registration authority, Thiruvananthapuram has cancelled the endorsement.  But in Ext.A2 print out of the Consumer Credit Information Report of the CIBIL website it is seen that the said loan has not been closed and Rs.71,463/- is due from the complainant.  Showing the complainant as a defaulter even though he had closed the loan, amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.  That being so complainant is entitled to compensation from the opposite parties 1 to 3.  In our view 4^th opposite party can only be treated as a performa party and no relief can be granted against them, as they have published the list of defaulters on the basis of information given by the 2^nd opposite party.

8 .Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- would be reasonable.

In the result complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI :  PRESIDENT

 

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

COMPLAINANT’S  WITNESS

 

Nil

 

COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS

 

Ext.A1        : Copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle.

Ext.A2        : The copy of the print out downloaded from the CIBIL site on 8.12.2015 and handed over to the complainant.

Ext.A3        : Letter from Canara Bank, Sasthamangalam branch to the Registering Authority regarding the termination of hypothecation of the vehicle.

Ext.A4        : Form No.35.

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  WITNESS

 

Nil

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS

 

Nil

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI :  PRESIDENT

 

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.