Order-17.
Date-31/08/2015.
Complainant Mr. Rishi Mukherjee by filing this complaint has submitted thatcomplainant’s father Mr. Gopinath Deogharia Mukherjee was approached by Citi Bank to avail of their credit card facilities which was duly accepted by him and he was granted two Citi Bank Credit Cards being Nos. 5546199433471018 and 5425569710629007 and as per the offer which was provided by the op no.1 at that point of time, every Primary Credit Card Holder was issued a privilege Additional Credit Card to each Primary Card and the same had been issued to the complainant being Nos. 5546199433471109 and 5425569710629205.
However GopinathDeogharia Mukherjee only once used the said primary credit cards. But on 08.09.2010 op no.1 vide his letter being No. ST100908TE39125145 addressed to Mr. GopinathDeogharia Mukherjee demanded pecuniary benefits of Rs. 3,000/- in the name of the primary card holder for full and final settlement of all dues of the primary card holder that included complainant’s ad on cards and it is pertinent to mention that the add on cards were never used by the complainant and still is lying with the complainant in sealed envelop as was given by the said bank.
No doubt the offer was accepted by GopinathDeogharia Mukherjee and instant payment of Rs. 3,000/- was made and the accounts were closed by the op no.1 vide their acknowledgement letter dated 13.10.2010. But sometime in September-2012 complainant applied to certain banks for granting him a loan for development and renovation of his house but to his utter surprise his loan requests were refused by the banks on the ground of bad CIBIL Report.
Accordingly complainant requested op no.2 to give him a detailed credit information report to know about his CIBIL status and showed a high credit of Rs. 53,821/- on the CITI Bank Add on Card no. 5546199433471109 and a high credit of Rs. 1,42,973/- on another Citi Bank Add On card No. 54255710629205 and the status are of date .written off..
In that situation complainant sent a letter to the op no.1 requesting them for issuing a NOC in his favour to CIBIL so that he may avail of the loan facilities from other banks and not to harass him for no reason since he has no way defaulted their dues for he is not the primary card holder and for the ad-on cards if concern he has never opened its seal for the purpose of any fair usage of the same.
Subsequently on 26.12.2014 complainant was perplexed by receiving a letter dated 26.12.2014 Memo No. 023-261-705/CRD/COU.KA from the office of the op no.1 duly signed and initiated by the authorized representative of op no.1 and the said Memo reveals that primary card holder should make payment of a sum of Rs. 15,085.70 paisa and Rs. 4,445.34 paisa as claimed for the updation process of the CIBIL Report .Null will Nil outstanding. which is due for the card ending being card no. 5546199433471018 and card No. 5425569710629007 payable to the op no.1 by the primary card holder and is in no way the complainant’s CIBIL Reportbut op no.1 seemed to have failed to realise the same causing severe damages to complainant’s image and prestige which is highly uncalled for.
But on 06.01.2015 complainant through his Advocate replied to the said Memo and by mentioning his prior co-operation and request for NOC to be issued by the CIBIL all the discrepancies he is not the primary card holder and must not be dragged into such a situation unnecessarily. But even after receipt of the reply the op never took any further action towards rectification of those points which evidently and impliedly ruined the complainant’s credit reports and nor replied to the letter dated 06.01.2015 and in the above circumstances for harassing the complainant and lowering down his prestige in such a manner and also for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op, complainant has filed this complaint praying for redressal against the ops.
On the other hand Citi Bank by filing written statement submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the op and the information as made by the op no.1 to op no.2 is correct and the CIBIL Report of the complainant is based on correct information and it was prepared by the op no.2 and op no.1 has no role to play the same.
It is specifically mentioned that complainant’s father GopinathDeogharia Mukherjee in the years 1998 and 2002 obtained two credit cards from the op no.1 having Nos. 5546199433471018 and5425569710629007 and in respect of said primary card add on card was provided having Nos. 54255710629205 and 5546199433471109. But both add on cards are in the name of the complainant and as per the card user agreement and usage of the credit cards, no separate statement for Add on Card is prepared and any expense incurred on the Add on card is shown in the statement in respect of the primary card and any purchase done using additional card will be displayed separately in the primary card statement by mentioning the additional card number and complainant and his father used the said credit cards and availed of the services provided by the op no.1 and complainant and his father were habitual defaulters for which huge outstanding piled up against each of the credit cards. Inspite of several requests made by the op no.1, complainant and his father failed to clear up the dues pending in respect of the said credit cards.
Op no.2 the Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. (CIBIL) is a credit information bureau and is a repository of information and CIBIL is authorized by the RBI and all banks and financial institutions are required to share credit information on a monthly basis with CIBIL, but not limited to current balance, payment history etc. and the same is done as per the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.
As per RBI circulars and regulations, the op no.1 is under an obligation to share the credit information and credit history with CIBIL. As the Add on cards were issued in relation to the primary card, the same were also updated in the name of the complainant as well as his father in CIBIL. The details report were the same as that of the primary card with the only exception that in the category of the ownership the same was mentioned as Authorised User for the Add on card holders account and this is because Clause 23.1 of the card member terms and conditions.
It is further submitted that on payment of Rs. 3,000/- all dues of the complainant and his father in respect of the two credit cards including Add on cards were settled and op no.1 reversed the remaining principal amount due on the credit cards and as per the above mentioned circulars and regulations updated the status of the complainant with CIBIL. Thereafter by his letter complainant requested the op no.1 to issued NOC in respect of his account and since the dues were written off, in order to update a status as Null with Nil Dues and op no.1 requested the complainant and the primary card holder to make payment of the balance due of Rs. 4,445.34 paisa against credit card no. ending with 1018 and Rs. 15,085.70 paisa against credit card ending No. 9007 and same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 22.12.2014 but without understanding the meaning of the contents of responses by the op no.1, complainant issued two misconceived legal notices which op no.1 had duly replied vide letter dated 04.03.2015 and in fact the present complaint is misconceived and only to avoid payment this complaint is filed.
The terminology Settled does not mean complete payment of the dues as per CIBIL terminology and as per the CIBIL terminology Settled means – In case an account is under dispute and there is a settlement between the customer and the credit institution and the account is reported as settled. Without prejudice to rights and conditions of the op no.1, it is submitted that as per the complaint, complainant is alleging that it is his father who may have any obligation towards op no.1, however the complainant ought to have impleaded him as a party. It is further submitted that the above averment of the complaint is incorrect in view of Clause 23.1 of the Card Member Terms and Conditions and the settlement of dues do not alter the status of a defaulter and in this regard there is a juegementpassed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 06.07.2011 and that is applicable in this case and op is denying all the other allegations in this regard and prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
After comparative study of the complaint and written version and also considering the entire materials and further hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is found that no doubt against Credit Card ending Nos. 1018 and 9007 were settled on 08.09.2010 and as per the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, Banks are required to share data of their customer’s re-payment pattern with CIBIL on a monthly basis and that was done no doubt as per guideline.
But fact remains that on receipt of cash payment for an amount of Rs. 3,000/- on 18.09.2010, above structured payment plan, both primary and add-on-card accounts stands settled in full and final and accordingly op reversed the remaining outstanding and reported to CIBIL as settled and no doubt that was reported. But fact remains that if complainant wants to change the status of the complainant and his father against Credit Card account in CIBIL is Null with Nil dues in that case balance amount which has not been paid by the complainant or his father shall be paid.
Considering the entire fact and materials, it is found that practically complainant or his father did not pay the actual amount no doubt against this card. But they settled the same on payment of Rs. 3,000/-. So, balance amount was noted to CIBIL List as per Bank Rules and RBI guideline. So, it is noted in the CIBIL list settled to null and this null word if it is required to be removed from the CIBIL List, in that case the complainant must have to pay the balance amount which has not been paid as yet and in fact that amount is not yet realised and no doubt as per provision of RBI guideline if any customer wants to delete his name from the CIBIL List, in that case Written Off portion of amount shall be deposited by the account holder and thereafter bank shall have to report before CIBIL to clear his status as cleared.
In fact in this case complainant’s Ld. Lawyer tried to convince that when the settlement was made and when the balance was written off, in that case also it was the duty of the bank to report to the CIBIL Authority to note the matter settled and clear. But after considering all the above circumstances, we are convinced to hold that even on payment of Rs. 3,000/- and even after settlement of claim by the Bank, the name of the complainant and his father shall not be deleted from CIBIL List unless and until Written Off portion is not paid by the complainant or his father.
So, considering that fact and the provision of CIBIL, we are confirmed that op Bank rightly asked the complainant to make payment of the balance due of Rs. 4,445.34 paisa against credit card no. ending with 1018 and Rs. 15,085.70 paisa against credit card ending No. 9007 rightly and in this regard there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op and for which we find that the entire allegation against the op is misconceived and if complainants wants to remove their names from CIBIL List, he shall have to deposit the balance amount to the Bank and Bank shall have to report the matter to CIBIL Authority for deleting the names of complainant and or his father.
In the light of the above observation this complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
