By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1. Complaint in short is as follows: -

      The complainant is a taxi driver and he purchased a Force Cruizer by availing loan from the State bank of India and the loan amount was Rs. 2,60,000/-.  The complainant also availed a gold loan from Kerala Gramin Bank, Manjeri and the loan amount was Rs. 1,05,000/-.  The complainant closed both loan amount and no amount is in due.  The complainant and his mother is having property and decided to avail a loan for construction work.  The complainant contacted Canara Bank and also other banks and they agreed to avail loan.   The Co-operative banks offered a loan amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-.  The complainant procured all records and when it was submitted for the loan purpose it was informed that in the name of complainant a loan liability of Rs. 3,00,000/- is seen in CIBIL Website. 

2.    The complainant contacted the opposite parties and found that the second opposite party by mistake included a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the name of complainant.   The complainant contacted the second opposite party and it was informed that by mistake they entered the name of complainant in the website of the third opposite party with the liability.  Actually, the loan is belonged to some third person.  The said third person not paid the loan and the same is a non-performance asset as far as the bank is concerned.  The 3^rd opposite party in their website published that the loan liability of the complainant is Rs. 7,02,659/-.  Since due to the entry in the records the complainant is not able to get any loan.   The complainant is with a bad character as far as the banks are concerned.   The complainant’s name is included in the black list.   No one will give any credibility to the transactions of the complainant.   Though the entire matter was informed to the opposite party, no action was taken by the opposite party till the date of filing complaint.  The response of the third opposite party was that, the second opposite party should correct the mistake. The second opposite party submitted that the first opposite party alone can correct the mistake.  The first opposite party was contacted by number of times, the direction from the first opposite party was to pay the loan amount.

3.     The submission of the complaint is that the second opposite party by mistake included the name of complainant and they are not in a position to delete the same since the loan is not repaid.  The manager of the opposite party said to the complainant that, the complainant is bound to pay the loan amount. The submission of the complaint is that the Canara bank, IOB, Auto loan, Mahindra finance, Kerala Gramin Bank, SBI, HDFC Bank etc rejected the request of the complainant treating that the complainant is a defaulter.   The complainant submits that all these occurred solely due to deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.  The complainant suffered a lot and put to suffer irreparable loss and hard ships.  The prayer of the complainant is that direct the opposite parties to remove loan liability from their records and to order the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.  4,00,000/- along with   cost of the proceedings.

4.       On admission of the complaint, notice issued to opposite parties and on receipt of notice they entered appearance and filed version.  The first and second opposite parties filed a joint version denying the averments and allegations in the complaint and contended lack of bonafides and also contended that complaint filed only to harass opposite parties and liable to be dismissed with cost of opposite parties.

5.         The opposite parties No.1 and 2 admitted that complainant had availed a gold loan from Kerala Gramin Bank,Manjeri branch.  But denied the allegations that the complainant contacted the second opposite party and it was informed that by mistakes, they entered the name of complainant in the website of third opposite party with liability. 

6.      The opposite parties submitted that CIBIL data uploading is an automated process and it is done centrally from Kerala Gramin Bank, Head office Malappuram. There after every month end the bank uploads CIBIL data generated from Banks server to the CIBIL site.  In this data each customer will be identified by his unique customer identification Number. On receipt of the present complaint, bank checked the CIBIL data uploaded details and found that as per complainant’s customer Identification No.410377494 only the data of complainant is provided to CIBIL on comparison of Data Bank identified that another customer with customer Identification No. 41162045 namely Vijeesh V.K.  and the date of birth same as data of the complainant.  It is also uploaded to CIBIL with this separate customer identification number. But in CIBIL site they have clubbed the data, the bank has reported separately as one and furnished in the name of the complainant.  So it is evident that opposite party uploaded the data correctly.  But in CIBIL site they have clubbed the data in to one which created difficulty to the complainant.   So, the data furnished by the Kerala Gramin Bank is correct and there are no mistakes on the part of first and second opposite parties.  The contentions of the complainant that he has contacted these opposite parties’ number of times is absolutely false. 

7.       These opposite parties further submitted that  the second opposite party stated to the complainant that by mistakes they included the name of complainant and they cannot delete it since the loan is not paid by the complainant is not correct.  These opposite parties are submitted that they are not responsible for any loss or damage suffered by the complainant and the complaint is filed only against these opposite parties to harass and dragging and so the prayer is to pay compensation to the opposite party for unnecessarily impleading in the complaint.

8.        The third opposite party also contended that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the third opposite party.  As per the contention of the third opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limini. 

9.     The 3^rdopposite party submitted that, they are engaged in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling, collating, collecting, processing and maintaining a data bank of credit information relating to both individuals and entities of all types whether incorporated or not, for the use of banks, financial institutions, etc dealing with the distribution of credit.   The opposite party functions as credit information company under the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 read with the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 and the Credit Information Companies Regulations, 2006 made under CICRA.   Member credit institution furnishes credit information relating to both individuals and entities of all types to a credit information company like opposite party No. 3 as per the requirements of CICRA.  Such credit information furnished by several member credit institutions is stored and collated by opposite party No.3.  The opposite party further submitted that as per Section 18 of CICRA which governs the settlement of disputes with/against Credit Information Companies like opposite party and section 31 which bares the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission and all Courts (except the Supreme Court and the High Court’s under their respective writ jurisdiction) from adjudicating upon disputes against opposite party No.3.

10.      The submission of the opposite party is that as per Section 18 and 31 of CICRA, it is clear that 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 arbitration or conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The use of the phrase “notwithstanding anything  contained  in any law  for the time being in force” in section 18 of CICRA is a clear indication that CICRA being a special and subsequent legislation (enacted 2005), shall prevail  over the Consumer Protection Act ( Which was enacted in 1986) on matters  wherein both legislations are deemed to concurrently applied.  Hence the complaint before the Consumer Commission is liable to be dismissed.   The opposite party further submit that as per the terms of conditions of CICRA,  no court or authority shall have  or be entitled  to exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority except the Supreme Court or the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution in relation to the matters  referred under  Section 18 i.e., disputes arising between credit information companies, credit institutions, borrowers and clients   on matters relating to the business of credit information. 

11.    The third opposite party further submitted that,  they does not carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain at Malappuram, Kerala, nor has any cause of action  as alleged  or otherwise arisen  against third opposite party within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission.  The opposite party further submitted that the above submission has been accepted in several matters by State and District Commissions in the country.   The opposite party further submitted that their work is governed by the provisions of CICRA and the Rules and the Regulations made there under and which cannot be held to be liable for any harm caused to the complainant and so any claim against the opposite party is to be dismissed. 

12.      The opposite party further submit that they issued the CICRA in a standard format and it does not create information or provide inputs thereon of its own. The credit information report reflects the credit information submitted to the opposite party No.3 by its member credit institutions as required under the CICRA and Rules and regulations made there under.  The credit information is an automated process through which the data reported by the member credit institutions is updated on the systems of the opposite party. The credit information appearing in the CIR furnished by opposite party No.3   is the aggregation / collation of all credit information so submitted to the opposite party by the first opposite party.

13.    The opposite party is repository of the credit information/ data in respect of millions of individuals/entities.  Hence the whole process of generating an individual/entities CIR is through a complex system of logical algorithms.  It is an automated process which works on match logic for which there are a numerous sets of match rules. This includes match on name, date of birth, address, gender identifiers   like Pan No. / Passport No./ Voter Id No / Drivers Licence No. etc.   When these identifiers are fed into the system a CIR on the best possible match with the data available in the system is generated.  It is pertinent to know that each of the identifiers is taken into consideration after which a CIR is generated. 

14.      It is submitted that due to the complexity of the systems several pieces of information regarding person or entity may be so similar with that of another person/ entity that the credit information of one person merges with that of another.  As a standard practice the opposite party No.3   in all cases advices its customers to bring to its notice any discrepancies in the CIR so that the same could be re-looked and, if need be, rectified. 

15.      In the case of complainant, on receipt of the complainant’s grievance it appeared that the complainant had a grievance with regards to the loan account No.2211532400516 with first opposite party reflecting in the complainant’s CIR, which according to the complainant did not belong to the complainant.  3^rd  Opposite party conducted a detailed analysis with respect to the credit information  appearing in the complainant’s CIR  and found that  in addition to the said disputed account  the following  six accounts were also in correctly merged  in to the complainant’s CIR accounts are as follows:-

1. Account No. 0160653000026754 being reported by South Indian Bank.
2. Account No. 22115319193818 being reported by Kerala Gramin Bank.
3. Account No. 22115319022617 being reported by Kerala Gramin Bank.
4. Account No. 22115319181416 being reported by Kerala Gramin Bank.
5. Account No. 22115319189317 being reported by Kerala Gramin Bank.
6. Account No.22394175 being reported by HDFC Bank.

The opposite party No.3 has removed all the above mentioned accounts from the complainant’s CIR.  The above mentioned accounts are not reflecting in the complainant’s CIR. The submission of the opposite parties are that  on notification of the discrepancy in the CIR of the complainant,  the opposite party No.3  verified its  records, conducted detailed analysis and segregated  the merged accounts.  The opposite party No.3 has sent a copy of the revised CIR to the complainant vide its letter dated 07/11/2019.  Hence the submission of the opposite party is that complainant does not have locus standi to approach the Consumer Commission and the opposite party already rectified the CIR and removed the disputed accounts from the record.  So, there is no reason to allow the prayer of the complainant and there is no actual monetary loss has been occurred to the complainant and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

16.     The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The document on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and it is a copy of letter issued by TRANS UNION CIBIL LIMITED to the complainant dated 07/11/2019.  Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext.B1 to B3.  Ext. B1 is copy of certificate regarding copy of printout of original data account stored in the computer system at Pookad branch of Kerala Gramin Bank issued by Senior Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank Pookad branch/ Universal Id No. 489112072676.  Ext. B2 is copy of certificate regarding copy of printout of original data account stored in the computer system at Pookad branch of Kerala Gramin Bank issued by Senior Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank Pookad branch/Universal Id No.322432339584.   Ext. B3 is copy of Credit Information Report dated 06/11/2019.

17.   Heard both sides.  Perused affidavit and documents. Opposite party No.1 and 2 filed notes of arguments also. Following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3.  Reliefs and cost?

18.  Point No:1: -

   The third opposite party contented that there is no allegation against third opposite party and dispute is with respect to CIBIL score and which is not maintainable as per the provisions of CICRA read with the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 & Credit Information Companies Regulation Act 2006.  The contention of the  third opposite party is that  the dispute under  CICRA  to be referred  for Arbitration  and the Consumer Commission have no  jurisdiction  to  entertain the complaint.  It is further submitted that the relevant Act CICRA came into force in the year 2005,i.e., subsequent to the enactment of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as per section 18 of CICRA which bares the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission and all courts except the Supreme court and High court under their respective Writ jurisdictions. But the close reading of CICRA 2005 the provisions says that parties to the disputes shall be settled by conciliation or arbitration as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, as if the parties to the disputes have consented in writing for determination of such disputes by conciliation or arbitration and provisions of that act shall apply accordingly. Section 31 of the CICRA is on bar of jurisdiction and it is stated as follows: -

“31 bar of Jurisdiction – No court or authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority, except the Supreme Court and High court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in relation to the matters referred to in sections 4,5,6,7 and 18”. The perusal of the affidavit and documents filed by both sides it appears the dispute is centred on alteration of credit information files and credit reports which is provided under Section 21 of CICRA. So it is clear that the bar of jurisdiction is not applicable regarding the alteration of credit information and the reports. There is no other remedy is provided in the Act regarding the grievance of the complainant. The presence of arbitration clause will not oust the right of complainant under Consumer Protection Act. It is also pertinent to note that consent of parties in dispute is to be given in writing for the reference of matter under Arbitration& Conciliation Act.  In the present complaint there is no written consent for referring the matter for Conciliation or Arbitration as provided in the   Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and so we do not find merit in the contention of the opposite parties that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by the Consumer Commission.  The Consumer Protection Act is to be treated as an additional remedy as provided in the Act 1986 as per Section 3 and which is still in force as per the enactment of Consumer Protection Act 2019, as per Section 100.

19. Point No.2: -

         The grievance of the complainant that he approached Canara Bank and other banks and financial institution for availing loan for the family purpose.   All of them were prepared to provide loan for the complainant, but on verification of the CIBIL score, they refused to provide loan stating that there is a loan liability of 
Rs. 3,00,000/-in his CIBIL websites. So, the submission is that due to false information provided by the third opposite party, the complainant was denied financial assistance from various banking authority. 

20.    The submission of the complainant is that  immediately  the complainant  contacted the  second opposite party  and they informed that  due to a mistake  a  loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been included  in the name of  complainant  and accordingly the  third opposite party  included the name of complainant  in the website  with the liability.  The complainant submit that the loan is belongs to some third person and that man is defaulted the loan and accordingly the same remains as non performance as far as the bank is concerned.  As per the website of the third opposite party that the loan liability of complainant is Rs. 7,02,659/-. The submission of complainant is that, he has no due to the bank as published by the third opposite party.  The complainant though intimated the opposite parties, no action has been taken till filing this complaint.  He further submit that,  the third opposite party said to him that second opposite party should correct the mistake  and   the second opposite party said that  the first opposite party alone can correct the mistake.   Due to the unfair and deficient service on the part of the opposite parties complainant approached this Commission with a prayer to allow, compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with cost. 

21.   The definite contention of the first and second opposite party is that there is no defect or deficiency on the part of the first and second opposite parties.  On receipt of complaint from the complainant, they checked the CIBIL data upload details and found that as per complainant’s customer identification number 410377494 only the data of complainant is provided to CIBIL.  It is further identified that  another customer  with customer identification number 411162045 by name  Vijesh .V.K, S/o of Viswanadhan and date of birth same as that of complainant is also  uploaded to CIBIL with his separate customer identification number.  But in  CIBIL site  they have  clubbed the data  which the  bank has reported  separately  as one  and furnished in the name of complainant. Hence the submission is that Kerala Gramin Bank uploaded the data correctly and Ext. B1 document reveals the same and the name of the complainant’s shown as Vijeesh. The data uploaded by Kerala Gramin to CIBIL in respect of Vijesh is marked as Ext. B2.  But in CIBIL site they clubbed the data in to one which created difficulty to complainant. 

22.     The third opposite party submitted that on receipt of the grievance from the side of complainant, the third opposite party conducted a detailed analysis with respect to the credit information appearing in the complainant’s CIR and found that in addition to the disputed account No. 22115324000516 the following 6 accounts were also incorrectly merged   in to the complainant’s CIR.

1. Account No. 0160653000026754 being reported by South Indian Bank.
2. Account No. 22115319193818 being reported by Kerala Gramin Bank.
3. Account No. 22115319022617 being reported by Kerala Gramin Bank.
4. Account No. 22115319181416 being reported by Kerala Gramin Bank.
5. Account No. 22115319189317 being reported by Kerala Gramin Bank.
6. Account No.22394175 being reported by HDFC Bank.

Accordingly, third opposite party removed all the above-mentioned accounts from the complainant’s CIR, at present the above-mentioned account are not reflecting in the complainant ‘s CIR. 

23.   The submission of the third opposite party is that the reason for these

inadvertent merger of accounts of two individuals is due to various reasons.   It is to rectify such errors that third opposite party No. 3 itself advices all applicants for CIR to bring to its notice any discrepancies in their CIR.  So that the same could be re looked and if need be, rectified.  So the submission of the opposite party is that being notified the discrepancies by the complainant, third opposite party verified its records, conducted detailed analysis and segregated the merged accounts.   The third opposite party sent a copy of the revised CIR to the complainant vide its letter dated 07/11/2019, which is marked as Ext. A1 in this complaint. 

24.  So the perusal of the affidavit and documents it can be seen that   the complainant account merged with another account and the same was reflected in the CIBIL score adversely to the complainant.   The first and second opposite party submitted through Ext. B1 and B2 that they uploaded data of the complainant correctly but the mistakes was occurred from the side of third opposite party.  The third opposite party has got their own reasoning for the mistakes, but the victim of the mistake of the third opposite party is the complainant. So we are of the opinion that there is defective service from the side of third opposite party and thereby the complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience and hardships. 

25.Point No.3: -

        The submission of the complaint is that they approached various financial institutions for availing loan facility and they were prepared to provide loan facility to the complainant. But the complainant submit that they denied loan facility  stating the  CIBIL score  and which reflect arrear of huge amount in his  account.  The opposite party contented and submitted that there is no document to show the financial loss sustained to the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant has not produced documents to show that he rightly approached any of the financial institution for availing loan.  In the absence of evidence to the same the opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  Moreover, it is submitted that on receipt of complaint from the side of complainant the third opposite party duly enquired about the facts and duly corrected the mistakes.  It is submitted the third opposite party that the complainant was served a letter Ext. A1 regarding the rectification of CIBIL score of the complainant.  The date of Ext. A1 is 07/11/2019.  The perusal of Ext. A1 it can be seen that the rectification process was done after receipt of notice from the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The complainant filed the present complaint on 21/08/2019.  So, it is certain that there rectification process completed by third opposite party, only after filing this consumer complaint CC/266/2019.  Though the complainant has not produced any document to show that he approached financial institutions for loan as stated by the third opposite party, we are of the view that, he might have approached the financial institutions and then only he came to know about his bad CIBIL score.  Normally, if any applicant who is apparently not eligible for a loan considering CIBIL score, it is not expected to receive an application for loan from any interested parties.  Hence, non-production of documents to prove loan application is not vital in this complaint since the allegation of the complaint stands proved otherwise.  The complainant had submitted that, he had availed loan facilities from financial institutions and all the transactions were properly closed by the complainant. The submission of the complaint is that he was in need of financial assistance from the financial institutions for his family purpose which stands denied due to the defective service on the part of the third opposite party.  So, the third opposite party is liable to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant on account of defective service and inconvenience caused to the complainant.  There is no specific norms to fix compensation in this complaint and there is no specific pleading to prove the exact loss sustained to the complainant.  Hence, we fix Rs. 1,00,000/- as reasonable amount of compensation in the matter considering the nature of grievance sustained to the complainant. The third opposite party is liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The third opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

26.  In the light of above facts and circumstances, Commission allows the complaint as follows: -

1. The 3^rdopposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant on account of defective service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
2. The 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only ) to the complainant.

The 3^rd  opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the third opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the above said entire amount from the date of filing this complaint to till the date of payment.

Dated this 4^thday of January, 2023.

MOHANDASANK., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMANC., 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.A1

Ext.A1: Copy of letter issued by TRANS UNION CIBIL LIMITED to the complainant

              dated 07/11/2019. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party             : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party           : Ext. B1 to B 3

Ext.B1: Copy of certificate regarding copy of printout of original data account stored

               in the computer system at  Pookad branch of Kerala Gramin Bank issued by

               Senior Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank Pookad branch/ Universal Id No.

               489112072676. 

Ext.B2: Copy of certificate regarding copy of printout of original data account stored

               in the computer system at Pookad branch of Kerala Gramin Bank issued by

               Senior Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank Pookad  branch/ Universal ID No.

                322432339584.

Ext.B3: Copy of Credit Information Report dated 06/11/2019.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER