1.      This Revision Petition No.2862 of 2017 challenges the impugned order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata  (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 05.06.2017.  Vide this order, the State Commission had set aside the order dated 14.05.2014 of the District Forum and allowed the Appeal No.1314 of 2014. Vide this order, the District Forum, had directed the Respondents/OPs-Citi Bank (‘OPs’, hereafter) to issue a No Due Certificate in respect of a card of Shri Arijit Biswas from the CIBIL list within a month, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000 and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000.

2.      Briefly, the facts of the case as per the Complainant are that in 2001 an Agent of the Respondents approached the Petitioner and introduced and described the facilities of credit card of the Bank. Accordingly, initially one credit card was issued in the name of the Petitioner vide credit card No. 5546 1997 5641 8018. Thereafter, in 2002 they issued another additional credit card in the name of his son, Arijit Biswas vide No.5546 1997 5641 8216 against the petitioner's card. In 2005, the same Respondents agent introduced further facilities of credit card by issuing two more credit cards vide No. 4385 8792 6908 8005 and 5546 3793 3982 9002 in the name of the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner was allowed to use three credit cards and his son one credit card. The payments were regularly paid for these cards.  During operation of those credit cards a big amount was shown outstanding and demanded the same by the Respondents. The Petitioner was not aware of the details of such demands. Therefore, in order to buy peace he tried to make a settlement with Respondents who readily agreed to it and after discussions made a settlement was arrived at by paying cash of Rs.25,000 on 12.1.2011 as per settlement dated 11.1.2011 on the condition that the Respondents will not demand any further amount. It was further stated that the cards are closed and stand settled on their records. Though the credit cards show "nil" balance to the petitioner's accounts, but the name of his son's credit card issued against Petitioner's credit card was not deleted in the Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (in short CIBIL) records as agreed upon and settled though it appears from the report dated 21.04.2012. The Petitioner made several personal attempts to get his son's name deleted and then issued letters dated 26.04.2012 and 13.07.2012, without any corrective action by the Respondents. Due to negligence and apathy on the part of the Respondents, the Petitioner sustained a loss of Rs.62,500 as he was compelled to cancel an agreement with one Real Estate Company viz. T.CON of 4/30, Netaji Nagar, Kolkata -700040 to whom an advance of Rs.2,50,000 was paid on 15.07.2011 and 19.11.2011 for booking a residential flat by his son, Shri Arijit Biswas and taking back the booking money by deducting 25% of the deposited amount.  Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Bank and it’s deficiency in service, the Petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers:

“a. An order directing to the opp. party to render service to the complainant by deleting the name complainant's son Arijit Biswas the office of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited in short CIBIL in respect of the Credit Card no. 5546 1997 5641 8216 issued by the opp. party against credit card no. 5546 1997 5641 8018.

b. A direction be given to the opp. party / bank to pay sum of Rs.62,500 only which was deducted by T. CON of 4/30, Netaji Nagar, Kol. 700040, from the earnest money / booked money of complainant.

c. A further direction be given to the opp. party/bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 only due to negligence from the part of the opp. party.

d.  Any other relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled by for.

3.      The Respondents/OP did not appear before the District Forum and no reply was filed. The learned District Forum vide order dated 14.05.2014 directed the Respondents/ OPs to issue a No Due Certificate in respect of a card of Shri Arijit Biswas from the CIBIL list within a month, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000 and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000.

4.      On appeal, the State Commission, after hearing counsels on behalf of both the parties, vide the impugned order modified the order passed by the District Forum.  The State Commission reasoned as below:

“I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondent when the record called on for hearing though the respondent has appeared through his Advocate by filing a Vakalatnama.

The fact remains that the respondent Shri Samar Kumar Biswas in the prayer clause of the petition of complaint has made a prayer to direct the appellant no.1 Citi Bank to render service to the complainant by deleting the name of complainant's son Arijit Biswas from the Office of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited(CIBIL) in respect of Credit Card No. 5546 1997 5641 8216 issued by the Bank against Credit Card No 5546 1997 5641 8018. Surprisingly enough, the complaint has not been lodged by Shri Arijit Biswas i.e. the son of the complainant independently. The Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate that there was no privity of contract between the appellant bank and the respondent with regard to the said Credit Card. Moreover, when there is no privity contact between the respondent and the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited, the respondent/ complainant cannot be categorised as 'Consumer' as defined in Section 20 (d) (ii) of the Act and on this ground alone the complaint should have been dismissed.

Needless to say, in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Reserve Bank India (RBI) guidelines, the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, the Credit Granting Companies are required to communicate the credit status to the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited. Therefore, appellant Bank has no authority to change the credit rating. It is only CIBIL who enjoys the statutory duty to make correct ratings. The ratings of CIBIL are not part of service rendered by the appellant bank to respondent under the Credit Card Holders agreement.

     Therefore, he Ld. District Forum has totally misdirected itself in considering the matter from proper perspective. Since the order is not sustainable either in facts or in law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

    In view of the above, the appeal is allowed exparte. There will be no order as to costs.

   The impugned judgement/final order is hereby set aside.

   Consequently CC No. 29/2014 stands dismissed.”

5.      It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed. Counsel for the both the Parties were heard on 17.10.2023 and Order was reserved.

6.      The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition which were already taken in the complaint filed before the District Forum and painstakingly argued that as per the terms of settlement, there is no outstanding against the Credit Cards and the same are closed and stand settled in their records.  He argued in support of the order of the District Forum.  He also placed reliance on the following judgments:

i. UIIC Ltd. Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills, (SC);

ii. NIAC Ltd. Vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd., (SC);

iii. U.O.I. Vs. Master Construction Company, (SC);

vi. NIC Ltd. Vs. Nipha Exports, (SC);

v. AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Nissan Electronics Ltd., (NC);

vi. M/s. Mjrs Medichem Surgicals Vs. NIC Ltd. & Ors., (NC);

vii. M.K. Enterprise Vs. NIC Ltd. (NC);

viii. Rajeev Tripathi Vs. UIIC Ltd., (NC).

7.      The learned Counsel for the Respondents reiterated the issues raised in the Memo of Appeal and argued in favour of the Impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission. He asserted that the Revision Petition should be dismissed with costs as misjoinder of parties, no privity of contract between the petitioner and CIBIL, nature of suit not a consumer complaint and no failure in providing services under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.      We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties.

9.      It is evident that, according to the copy of the CIBIL report dated 15.12.2012, the status of Shri Arijit Biswas's Credit Card is indicated as "WRITTEN-OFF." It is also undisputed that, based on the settlement dated 11.01.2011, there are no outstanding dues concerning the Petitioner's credit cards. The primary concern of the Petitioner revolves around the removal of Shri Arijit Biswas's name from the CIBIL list. However, it is crucial to note neither Shri Arjit Biswas nor CIBIL have ever been parties in this matter. Therefore, there is no basis to direct CIBIL to delete the name of the Shri Arijit Biswas. Consequently, we find no legal irregularity in the impugned order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the State Commission.

10.    In view of the foregoing discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed.  No order as to costs.  All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.