DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2018

                                        Date of institution: 08.03.2018

                                            Date of Decision:16.08.2021

Bhagwant Singh aged about 43 years son of S. Hari Singh, resident of House No.3664, Street No.4, Chet Singh Nagar, Gill Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana

…….Complainant

Versus

1. CIBIL Corporate Office : 19^th Floor, Tower 2A-2B, Senapati Bapat Marg, Eiphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013, through its Officer Incharge

IInd Address: Horchest House, 6^th Floor, 193, Backbay, Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, Maharashtra

2. Bajaj Finserv, SCO 35-G, B.R.S. Nagar, Block-G, Opposite Police Station, Ludhiana-141002, through its Manager
3. SBI Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, 1^st Floor, Fountain Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its Officer Incharge

 ……..Opposite Parties

 QUORUM:   

  HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                  HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

PRESENT:

Sh. Iqbal Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. VS Mand, Adv. For OP1

Sh. Sumit Jain, Adv. for OP2

ORDER

RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the complainant is working as Clerk in Education Department, Mangat, District Ludhiana. He is a salaried person and is having standing high repute. There was marriage of daughter of the complainant and in order to solemnize the marriage of his daughter, the complainant applied for loan against property in the sum of Rs.17,00,000/- from State Bank of India. However, the loan of the complainant was refused to him on the pretext that the record of the complainant is blemished in CIBIL and some other person’s loan with mobile number, which is shown with CIBIL account of the complainant. The complainant was totally shocked and surprised to learn this from the officials of SBI as the complainant had never ever applied any loan during his lifetime before that. As such, the complainant started writing letters to the competent officials of the opposite parties through emails including email dated 02.10.2017 requesting them to clear the status/account of the complainant since he has never availed any loan at any point of time. The complainant received one email dated 04.10.2017 from the opposite party No.2, whereby they demanded scan copy of CIBIL report and PAN card of the complainant to verify the details. The said email was duly replied by the complainant on 4.10.2017 raising his concern. In response to the email of the opposite parties, the complainant sent email dated 12.10.2017 to the opposite parties and forwarded the scanned copy of pan and cibil report as per the demand of the opposite parties. Thereafter on 16.10.2017 through email again the complainant raised his concern with the opposite parties. However, despite the repeated requests and reminders of the complainant through protracted correspondence, the opposite parties have failed to do the needful in this regard till date. The alleged loan facility has been availed by some Ramandeep Singh, resident of House No.B-28-245, MIG Flat, Dugri, Ludhiana with mobile No.99149-13216 and Bhagwan Singh, resident of House No.H-245, Village Dugri, Ludhiana with mobile No.99149-13216 and against the loan liability of above said persons, the CIBIL record of the complainant has been blemished. Earlier the complainant using mobile no.9914913216. However, the complainant stopped using the said mobile number for the last about 2-3 years. It is only account of this mobile No.99149-13216, the loan liability has been shown to be outstanding against the complainant, whereas, the complainant did not avail any such alleged loan facility at any point of time, thus, the question of outstanding against the complainant does not arise at all. The loan account No.4260CD00053561 and 4260CD00091474 regarding which outstanding loan amount is being claimed from the complainant, does not pertain to the complainant. The complainant approached the local Sarabha Nagar office of the opposite party No.2, 6-7 times and requested them to issue No Objection certificate to the complainant since the complainant has not availed any loan from the opposite parties and no loan liability is outstanding due against the complainant and since it is creating a hurdle in the grant of the housing loan to the complainant. However, the opposite parties paid no heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. All these acts on the part of the opposite parties amounts to gravest deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to the said blemished CIBIL record of the complainant, the complainant could not avail the loan facility against his property and the loan of Rs.17,00,000/- applied by the complainant was cancelled by State Bank of India i.e. opposite party No.3, due to which the complainant could not marry his daughter on the fixed date and the marriage of the daughter had to be postponed due to paucity of funds. All this caused a great harassment, humiliation, anguish, mental pain, agony, trauma and tension to the complainant besides insult and defamation in the society sa well as in the school where the complainant is employed. Due to this reason the complainant remained under depression for a number of days and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the same. The opposite parties are having their branch office at Ludhiana and the cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite parties to file the present complaint. As such, this commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted and the opposite parties may kindly be directed to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant and to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for the financial loss, mental pain, tension and suffered utmost physical as well as mental cruelty, harassment, humiliation, anguish and depression suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in services and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties beside litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.  

2. In reply, the OP No.1 has filed written reply stating therein that the name of opposite party No.1 has changed the Credit Information Bureau (India) limited to Transunion CBIL Limited with effect from July 28, 2016 in terms of the Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to change of name dated July 28,2016. Further, the registered office address of op1 has changed to one India bulls centre, Tower 2A – 2B, 19^th floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai. The present complaint No.689 of 2018 is not maintainable against the opposite party No.1 as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1. The complaint is also not maintainable on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer of OP1 under the Consumer Protection Act as neither the complainant has availed any services for consideration from OP1 nor has P1 provided any service to the complainant. Before this Commission that the issue of maintainability of the said complaint against OP1 be heard as a preliminary issue and disposed of first before commencing with the matter on merits. Complaint is not maintainable against the OP1 since the Hon’ble Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues/grounds raised by the complainant in the said complaint against the OP1 on the ground that the OP1 is engaged in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling, collating, collecting, processing and maintaining a database 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 OP1 functions as a credit information company under the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (CICRA) read with the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 and the Credit Information Companies Regulations, 2006 made under CICRA. Furnishing of credit information is strictly to a closed user group of members, individuals and the specified users as permitted/required under the provisions of CICRA and the Rules and the Regulations made there under. Rest of allegations made against the complainant have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.

3.     In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OPs also tendered certain documents in support of their version.

4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

5.     After perusing the file, we feel, that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service against the OPs as the Ops is failed to show any documentary proof on the file regarding defaulting amount of the complainant. So, the complainant is entitled to the claim. OP No.2 is directed to issue NOC to the complainant. OPs are directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. The OPs are further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.

August 16, 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

(Ranvir Kaur)

RBT/ CC No.163 of 2018

Present:    Sh. Iqbal Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant

               Sh. VS Mand, Adv. For OP1

               Sh. Sumit Jain, Adv. for OP2

Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.

August,16 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

(Ranvir Kaur)