BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Smt.Vimal Vyas, R/o H.No.2857, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

Citi Bank, SCO 124-125, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Ms.Rubina Joshi, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh.Munish Goel, Counsel for OP.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant availed a loan facility of Rs.2,32,131.48 on 30.5.2005 (Annexure C-1). The statement given by the OP shows that loan disbursed was Rs.2,49,500/- to its DMA, but the DMA dispatched the cheque of Rs.2,32,131.48 only and the difference amount of Rs.17,369.52 was never paid to the complainant (Annexure C-2). The complainant requested the OP over phone, to settle the things from April 2008, but the OP did not pay any heed. It is alleged that at the time of loan formalities, the complainant requested the OP to present the cheques after 8^th of every British calendar months, but the OP presented some cheques on every 1^st & 2^nd day of the month and due to this; the cheques were bounced. The OP put the name of the complainant in CIBIL list of defaulters without any reason; actually the OP disbursed the loan amount of Rs.249500.00 to its Direct Marketing Agency (DMA) and not to the complainant, surprisingly, out of which the complainant received an amount of Rs.232181.48 only i.e. Rs.17369.52 less from the agreed amount. The complainant requested the OP several times through mails and telephonic calls to settle the things (Annexure C-3 (colly)), but all in vain. Hence this complaint.

2.      OP appeared and filed reply. It is replied that complainant had availed a Car Loan for an amount of Rs.2,49,500/- on 25.5.2005 from the OP through the dealer Baba Finance Company (dealer). The loan amount of Rs.2,49,500/- as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement was disbursed in favour of the dealer “Baba Finance Company” vide D.D.No.013049, dated 25.5.2009 and the same was cleared on 27.5.2005. The copies of Loan Application and Loan Agreement have been annexed as Annexure-A (Colly). It was agreed between both the parties that the payment has to be made through the Dealer. The complainant herself has given instruction to the OP, to disburse the said amount to the Dealer, as is evident from the document “Payment Instruction for Car Loan from Citibank” (Ann.-B). Thus, the OP has fulfilled all its obligations by disbursing the Demand Draft of Rs.2,49,500/- to the Dealer. The OP is not answerable, as to why did the Dealer disburse only Rs.232131.48 to the complainant? The PDC’s issued by the complainant has bounced on numerous instances and the complainant has made herself liable for bounce charges.

        It is further asserted, that as per norms, the OP is duty bound to give all the details of its customers to CIBIL as well as the status of its customers on regular basis. The OP had obeyed the law of the country by sharing the credit information of the customers with CIBIL. Since the complainant has defaulted in repaying the EMIs, hence the factual information of the account status of the complainant was shared with CIBIL. In view of this, it is prayed that complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed. 

3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.       The main averment of the complainant, in this complaint, is that the DMA (Direct Marketing Agency) of OP dispatched a cheque of Rs.2,32,131.48; whereas the loan disbursed was shown to the tune of Rs.2,49,500/- to its DMA.  Therefore, the difference amount of Rs.17,369.52 was never received by the complainant.  Moreover, to her great dismay, she was mentally harassed by malaise intention of OP, as her name was figured in the CIBIL List as a defaulter without any reasons. 

6.       Admittedly, the OP disbursed to its DMA an amount of Rs.2,49,500/- and not to the complainant, whereas the complainant received Rs.2,32,131.48 only.  Such factum, the OP has agreed in its mail dated July 7, 2010 (Ann.C-3 (colly)).

7.       Contrary to the allegations of the complainant, the OP, in their written statement, has contended that the payment through dealer was made as a result of an agreement between both the parties as well as the directions/instructions duly singed by the complainant, which is evident from the document “Payment Instruction for Car Loan from Citibank” (Ann.B). 

8.       The OP has categorically mentioned that the said loan amount of Rs.2,49,500/- was disbursed through demand draft drawn in favour of BABA FINANCE CO., as per the Terms of the Agreement and instruction given by the complainant. Moreover, Clause 2(2) of the Agreement at Page 22 clearly stipulates that the payment made to the Dealer by the OP, shall be deemed to be disbursement to the Borrower (Complainant).  Therefore, admittedly, the OP has fulfilled all its obligations, as agreed.

9.       Furthermore, PDC’s issued by the complainant has bounced on numerous occasions, for which she herself was liable to pay the bouncing charges.  It was pleaded that the OP has obeyed the laws of the country and instructions of RBI by sharing the credit information of the customers with CIBIL.  Moreover, as per RBI Instructions issued vide DBOD.No.DL.14/20.16.034/2004-05,dated 11.7.2005, the OP Bank was not required to obtain any prior consent of the borrowers before disclosing/sending the credit information to CIBIL. It was also pleaded that OP is legally bound to send a consolidated report of the current status of all its customers, electronically, to CIBIL on regular basis and since the complainant has defaulted in repaying the EMI’s (Ann.C-1 Page-13); hence the factual information of the said account status was shared with CIBIL.  Therefore, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.     

10.      The averment of the complainant is that OP has presented some of the PDC’s on 1 & 2^nd of the month, whereas her instruction was to present the same after 8^th of every month.  This averment does not hold any water as the same is contrary to the statement of accounts, placed on record by the complainant herself.

11.      As a matter of evidence, the complainant availed Car Loan from OP through their DMA – M/s Baba Finance Company, but the complainant has not impleaded Baba Finance Company (DMA) as a party to the lis, in the array of Opposite Parties.  Moreover, the complainant herself agreed and gave instructions to OP to make the payment of loan in favour of M/s Baba Finance Company vide Ann.B, dated 11.5.2005; therefore, the OP Bank cannot be held liable for any deficiency or fault, if any, on the part of M/s Baba Finance Limited, who actually made the payment to the complainant.  

12.      Judged from any angle, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Complainant has not been able to establish any case in her favour or prove any allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the OP. As a matter of fact, it is the OP, which has been able to completely assail and rebut the allegations made by the Complainant against it, by producing all relevant documents on record. Therefore, we find that there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and it deserves dismissal. Hence, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.