Haryana

Karnal

CC/287/2022

Surjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEO Cum Managing Director, CIBIL Union Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajan Gupta

04 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 287 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.25.05.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:04.04.2024

 

Surjeet Singh son of Shri Chandgi Ram, resident of 493, old Housing Board, Sector-13, Karnal. Mobile no.9466101540.

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. CEO cum Managing Director, CIBIL Union Limited, One World Centre, Tower-2A, 9^th floor, Senapati Bapat, Marg, Elphinston Road, Mumbai-400013, Maharashtra.

 

2. HDFC Bank Limited through its Branch Head/ Manager, HDFC Loan Branch, SCO 2 &3, 1^st floor, HUDA Market, Sector-8, Karnal.

 

3. CEO Cum Managing Director, HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC House, 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021.

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before     Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

                Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Rajan Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

    Shri Karandeep Singh Cheema, counsel for the   

    OP no.1.

    Sh.Amit Munjal, counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is a practicing Advocate at District Courts, Karnal. In the month of May-2022, complainant planned to purchase a Nexon Car from Metro Motors, Karnal who are authorized dealers and made enquiries at the showroom in midway and finalized purchase of the said car. On 21.05.2022, complainant took a quotation of the said car at Rs.21,61,376/- alongwith other applicable additional taxes. For purchasing of the said car, complainant took the loan from his banker Punjab and Singh Bank, Karnal. The processing of loan started by availing services of resource person of Mahindra Finance Limited and said person asked for PAN Card and Aadhar Card of complainant, which was given by the complainant. Thereafter, the said person of the finance company check the cibil of complainant and told to complainant that he is suffering from low score of only 602 which is not appropriate and there must be some default on the part of complainant in repayment of some loan availed and he instructed the complainant to check further about the loan history of complainant. Complainant approached the OPs no.2 and 3 to check their records of NPA, on which the OPs no.2 and 3 informed the complainant that he is defaulter of loan amount of Rs.33,252/- on a vehicle loan two wheeler make in individual capacity bearing account no.23909025 and member name HDFC Bank, which was initially of Rs.1,39,313/- and some amount was written off in 2013 year by them which has been reflected in CIBIL account maintained by OP no.1 but complainant never availed such loan and then complainant enquired about the actual defaulter which came out to be one Inderjeet. It is further alleged that complainant moved an application to the office of OPs no.2 and 3 with request to rectify the entry of wrong vehicle default loan account but instead of listening to the complainant, the officials of OPs no.2 and 3 started misbehaving with the complainant and told that the Advocate are the most defaulter lot and they did not entertain the application of complainant and refused to rectify the wrong entry as they claimed that the complainant is the actual defaulter and might be a guarantor of some person or might have used his ID for availing loan for some other person after misusing his status as Advocate. The complainant was totally demoralized and was publically insulted by the officials of OPs no.2 and 3 and as suffered financial, social, mental, emotional harassment at the hands of the OPs. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has not been able to enjoy the comforts of the motor car schedule to be purchased by him. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to rectify the entry of CIBIL score of complainant by deleting the fictious loan NPA has shown against him qua loan relating to office of OPs no.2 and 3, to rectify the error and fault made by them reflecting wrong entry of loan of two wheeler rendered NPA against the name of complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for mental pain, agony and harassment, to pay Rs.1lakh on account of defamation and insult by OPs and to pay Rs.55000/- for the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction as in terms of section 18 of the CICRA, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any dispute on matters relating to the business of credit information is required to be settled solely by conciliation or arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant is disputing ownership of two wheeler loan account no.2390925 reported by HDFC Bank. He has stated that another person named Inderjeet has misused his personal information to obtain loan fraudulently. He is disputing low CIBIL Score. The complainant had earlier approached the OP no.1 by way of legal notice with regard to the same complaint and the OP no.1 immediately conducted a detailed analysis of the complainants credit information available in the database based on the identifiers shared by him in the legal notice and found that based on the data submitted to OP no.1 by Member Credit Institution and the match rules, the CIR generated had a credit information belonging to another individual which had similar identifying details. Accordingly, the disputed HDFC Bank Account no.23909025 has already been delinked, it would not impact the score in fresh CIR. It is further pleaded that HDFC Bank Ltd. is a separate legal entity and nothing to do with the OP no.1. All the transactions have been done between the complainant and the OPs no.2 and 3. There is no direct allegation/averment/statement against the OP no.1. The allegations have been made against the OPs no.2 and 3 only. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and veracity of any and all information reported/submitted by the Member institutions. Such responsibility lies with the reporting institutions as per the CICRA and the Rules and the Regulations made thereunder. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant is a defaulter of loan amount of Rs.33,252/- and written off amount of Rs.1,39,313/- is reflecting in CIBIL. The account no.23909025 does not relate to complainant in any manner and OP never informed any default of complainant to CIBIL. It is further pleaded that OPs never share any default information about complainant to CIBIL. It is only CIBIL who can explain about the incorporation of wrong information in complainant account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of CIBIL Transaction Score of complainant Ex.C1, copy of CIBIL Report Details Ex.C2, copy of quotation/ Performa invoice Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 16.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             OP no.1 tendered no evidence after availing several opportunities including two last opportunities. Thus, the evidence of OP no.1 was closed by court order, vide order dated 05.10.2023 of the Commission.

7.             Learned counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Singh, authorized representative Ex.DW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.D2/1 and closed the evidence on 22.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant want to purchase a Nexon Car from Metro Motors, Karnal. Complainant took a quotation of the said car at Rs.21,61,376/-.
Complainant wants to take the loan for purchasing of the said car. The official of finance company checked the cibil of complainant and told that he is suffering from low score and there must be some default by complainant in repayment of some loan availed. Complainant approached the OPs no.2 and 3 to check their records of NPA, on which the OPs no.2 and 3 informed the complainant that he is defaulter of loan amount of Rs.33,252/- on two wheeler loan but complainant never availed such loan and then complainant enquired about the actual defaulter which came out to be one Inderjeet. He further argued that complainant moved an application to OPs no.2 and 3 with request to rectify the entry of wrong vehicle default loan account but OPs did not pay any attention to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per section 18 of CICRA, any dispute arising between the parties shall be settled under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and thus this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. He further argued that complainant is disputing the ownership of two wheeler loan account No.2390925 reported by HDFC Bank. He has further argued that another person named Inderjeet has misused the personal information of complainant to obtain loan fraudulently. The disputed HDFC Bank Account no.23909025 has already been delinked, it would not impact the score in fresh CIR. The HDFC Bank Ltd. is a separate legal entity and nothing to do with the OP no.1. All the transactions have been done between the complainant and the OPs no.2 and 3. There is no direct allegation/ against the OP no.1. The allegations have been made against the OPs no.2 and 3 only and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant is a defaulter of loan amount of Rs.33,252/- and written off amount of Rs.1,39,313/- is reflecting in CIBIL. The account no.23909025 does not relate to complainant in any manner and OP never informed any default of complainant to CIBIL. OPs never share any default information about complainant to CIBIL and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OPs no.2 and 3.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           The first question arises for consideration is that whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not?

14.           The OP no.1 has taken a plea that in view of section 18 of the CICRA, any dispute on matters relating to the business of credit information is required to be settled solely by conciliation or arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  For the sake of argument, it may be considered that there exists an arbitration clause, in that case also this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as it is a settled proposition of law that complaint under Consumer Protection Act, being an additional remedy, despite there being an arbitration clause, the proceedings before Consumer Commission have to go on. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. In this regard, we place reliance on the case titled “M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Versus Aftab Singh, review petition © Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.55 as under:-

“We may, however, hasten to add that in the event a person entitled to seek an additional special remedy provided under the statutes does not opt for the additional/special remedy and he is a party to an arbitration agreement, there is no inhibition in disputes being proceeded in arbitration. It is only the case where specific/special remedies are provided for and which are opted by an aggrieved person that judicial authority can refuse to relegate the parties to the arbitration.”  

 

15.           Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

16.           Furthermore, the written version filed by the OP no.1 is only signed by the counsel and same has not been signed by the  OP. As per order 6 Rule 14 CPC every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader. Order 6 Rule 14 CPC is reproduced as under:-

14. Pleading to be signed:- 

Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any):

Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.  

 

 17.           Since the written version has not been signed by the party itself, the written version cannot be considered.

18.           Furthermore, despite of availing several opportunities, OP no.1 has failed to tender its evidence and the evidence has been closed, by this Commission, vide order dated 05.10.2023.

19.           The complainant has alleged that CIBIL score of the complainant has been lowered down by the OP no.1 on account of default of two wheeler loan availed by him from the OPs No.2 & 3 but the complainant has never availed any loan at any point of time. 

20.           The OPs No.2 & 3 in their written version as well as evidence have  categorically mentioned that they never informed the OP No.1 with regard to default of loan amount of Rs.33,252/- and also stated that the loan account No.23909025 does not relate to the complainant in any manner.

21.           The CIBIL score of the complainant has been lowered down by the OP No.1 only due to default of said loan but the said loan has never been availed by the complainant from the OPs No.2 & 3. This fact has not been denied by the OP No.1.

22.           The OP No.1 in its written version has admitted that on conducting a detailed analysis of the complainant’s credit information available in the database based on the identifiers shared by him in the legal notice and found that based on the data submitted to OP No.1 by the Member Credit Institutions and the match rules, the CIR generated had a credit information belonging to another individual which had similar identifying details and accordingly the disputed HDFC bank A/c No.23909025 has been delinked on mixed file basis and it would not impact the score in fresh CIR. Meaning, thereby the OP No.1 has admitted its fault that due to similar identifying details of another individual, they had linked the two wheeler loan with the CIBIL of the complainant. Moreover, the said mistake has been rectified by the OP no.1 during the pendency of the present complaint, which they should have rectified at  earlier stage.

23.           As per performa invoice Ex.C3, dated 21.05.2022, issued by Metro Motors (P) Limited, Karnal, the cost of car which the complainant wanted to purchase was Rs.21,61,376/- and in order to purchase the said car, the complainant wanted to avail loan facility but due to low CIBIL score, the Financial Institute has denied to sanction the loan facility in favour of complainant. All this had happened due to the act of the OP No.1 and in this way, the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental harassment. Thus, the act of the OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for litigation expenses.

24.                 Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. Complaint qua OPs no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:04.04.2024     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                       Member