Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant applied for housing loan to Opposite Party No.1 and taken a loan of Rs.4 lacs which was given vide account No.1479166362 and lateron also availed additional loan of Rs.1,39,150/- vide account No. 1479166601 and the loan was repaid by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 and regarding the same, ‘No Due Certificate’ has been issued by Opposite Party No.1 for account No. 1479166362 vide letter dated 15.10.2013 and additional loan was also cleared on 30.01.2009 and certificate dated 14.6.2013 has been issued by the Opposite Party bank in this regard.  The CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau India Limited) is an authority relating to consumer credit information report and the amount, if any outstanding decreased the rating of the person and he will not be getting any type of the loan before clearance of said entry in CIBIL. As the complainant paid whole of the amount in 2009, but the Opposite Party  intentionally did not updated the clearance of loan and balance of Rs.1,75,855/- is still outstanding in CIBIL due to the negligence of Opposite Party  and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant made request to the officials of the Opposite Party  to take necessary action for clearance of the entry regarding outstanding loan in CIBIL, but the bank did not take any action. The complainant is the Managing Director of Green Valley Organic Foods Private Limited and for expansion of his business,  the complainant approached different banking institutions for the purpose of loan for expansion of business for his better livelihood and the complainant has to avail the said loan by pledging his house. The complainant also approached AXIS bank for the purpose of availing loan, but due to non clearance of CIBIL, the complainant was unable to take any loan for enhancement of his business.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       A compensation of Rs.10 lacs be awarded on account of business loss and Rs.7 lacs be awarded for mental pain, agony and harassment.   

b)      Cost of proceedings of Rs.11,000/- may also be granted in favour of the complainant.

c)       Opposite Parties be directed for clearance of name of the complainant in CIBIL for outstanding amount which has already been paid in the year 2009. 

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to kindly also be granted.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant  has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has rather suppressed various material facts and as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief;  that the complaint is legally not maintainable in this Forum. On merits, it is averred that it is correct that the complainant applied for loan which was advanced to him, but regarding the entries made in the CIBIL record, CIBIL is an independent organisation. It retrieves online data from various banks. The organisation is neither working under the instruction nor guidelines of the Opposite Parties nor is a subsidiary of the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties can not be  in any way held liable for any acts or omissions on the part of CIBIL. Regarding repayment of loan, NDC was issued to the complainant when the complainant cleared the loans. As soon as the complainant brought it to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties forwarded a communication to CIBIL for updating the status, and also the Opposite Parties issued NDC to the complainant. In case of adverse CIBIL entry, the same can be rebutted by producing NDC and bank statements showing strict maintenance of financial discipline by the borrower which the complainant had obtained from the Opposite Parties when required by him. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Prabhat Ranjan Kumar, Branch Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that he applied for housing loan to Opposite Party No.1 and taken a loan of Rs.4 lacs which was given vide account No.1479166362 and lateron also availed additional loan of Rs.1,39,150/- vide account No. 1479166601 and the loan was repaid by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 and regarding the same, ‘No Due Certificate’ has been issued by Opposite Party No.1 for account No. 1479166362 vide letter dated 15.10.2013 and additional loan was also cleared on 30.01.2009 and certificate dated 14.6.2013 has been issued by the Opposite Party bank in this regard.  The CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau India Limited) is an authority relating to consumer credit information report and the amount, if any outstanding decreased the rating of the person and he will not be getting any type of the loan before clearance of said entry in CIBIL. As the complainant paid whole of the amount in 2009, but the Opposite Party  intentionally did not updated the clearance of loan and balance of Rs.1,75,855/- is still outstanding in CIBIL due to the negligence of Opposite Party  and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant made request to the officials of the Opposite Party  to take necessary action for clearance of the entry regarding outstanding loan in CIBIL, but the bank did not take any action. The complainant is the Managing Director of Green Valley Organic Foods Private Limited and for expansion of his business,  the complainant approached different banking institutions for the purpose of loan for expansion of business for his better livelihood and the complainant has to avail the said loan by pledging his house. The complainant also approached AXIS bank for the purpose of availing loan, but due to non clearance of CIBIL, the complainant was unable to take any loan for enhancement of his business and in this way, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. 

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  first of all, it is correct that the complainant applied for loan which was advanced to him, but regarding the entries made in the CIBIL record, CIBIL is an independent organisation. It retrieves online data from various banks. The organisation is neither working under the instruction nor guidelines of the Opposite Parties nor is a subsidiary of the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties can not be  in any way held liable for any acts or omissions on the part of CIBIL. Regarding repayment of loan, NDC was issued to the complainant when the complainant cleared the loans. As soon as the complainant brought it to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties forwarded a communication to CIBIL for updating the status, and also the Opposite Parties issued NDC to the complainant. In case of adverse CIBIL entry, the same can be rebutted by producing NDC and bank statements showing strict maintenance of financial discipline by the borrower which the complainant had obtained from the Opposite Parties when required by him and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. But though the Opposite Parties have denied its responsibility to clear the name of complainant despite issuance ‘No Due Certificate’ in favour of the complainant on the ground that regarding the entries made in the CIBIL record, CIBIL is an independent organisation. It retrieves online data from various banks. The organisation is neither working under the instruction nor guidelines of the Opposite Parties nor is a subsidiary of the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties can not be  in any way held liable for any acts or omissions on the part of CIBIL. But the Opposite Parties have failed to produce any such document of any authority or Reserve Bank of India on the basis of which, they are escaped from its liability to get  clear4 the name of complainant from  CIBIL. It is not disputed that the complainant has already cleared the loan amount of the Opposite Parties and in this regard Opposite Parties have issued the NDC in this regard, in favour of complainant, copies of the same are placed on record as Ex.C3, Ex.C4, Ex.C5, Ex.C7 and Ex.C9. When the complainant has already cleared the loan amount availed from the Opposite Parties, then why one should suffer in the hands of the Opposite Parties. In our opinion, there is no such provision or law of land that the consumer shall approach the CIBIL directly to delete his name from the CIBIL after clearance of the loan amount from the bank and more-so, the Opposite Parties have failed to produce any such law on the record  and the Opposite Parties have failed to give any satisfactory reply to this querry.  In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and they are liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant in this regard.

8.       The complainant has sought compensation of Rs.10 lacs on account of business loss and Rs.7 lacs for mental pain, agony and harassment besides cst of proceedings of Rs.11,000/-. The complainant also sought for the relief from Opposite Parties for clearance of his name in CIBIL for outstanding amount which has already been paid in the year 2009.  Hence, we direct the Opposite Parties to get the name of complainant cleared from CIBIL regarding the aforesaid two accounts.   But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs and Rs.7 lacs   is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has  to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-. Opposite Parties are  granted one month time to comply with the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum