Order No. 41 dt. 12/07/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant in the year 2008 applied for credit card in her name and she approached the o.p. bank along with application form and other necessary documents as asked by the concerned agent of the bank. After verification of the entire documents o.p. denied to issued the credit card and informed the complainant that they cannot issue the Citi Bank Card. After getting such information the complainant met the bank official and requested them to make enquiry regarding the address of the complainant. In the month of July 2009 the complainant applied for a car loan to Cholamondalam Finance and after verification of the application said financer refused to grant the loan for the reason that an amount is remaining outstanding to the Citi Bank in the name of the complainant and on enquiry the said financer provided the statement given by the Consumer Information Bureau Limited (CIBIL) wherein the name of the complainant depicted as a consumer having outstanding credit in the credit card account. The complainant after making enquiry it was found that the name of the complainant was appearing as customer but the card number was different. After detection of such anomaly the complainant brought it to the notice of o.ps. but no effective step was taken. After making various correspondences with the o.p. bank, the bank officials assured the complainant that they would take measure for deletion of the name of the complainant from the CIBIL but no such step was taken. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to withdraw the name of the complainant from CIBIL and to pay compensation of Rs.15 lakhs.
The o.p. nos.1 to 3 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act. The only allegation of the complainant is that she has not been allowed to be a credit card holder by the bank. The o.p. bank after scrutinizing all the documents filed by the complainant rejected the prayer of the complainant for issuing credit card. The o.ps. cannot suomoto act unless there is any information or instruction from the complainant with regard to change of mailing address. The complainant intimated the mailing address instead of the mailing address earlier given and o.ps. rightly acted upon the changed mailing address of the complainant and issued credit card to her. It is the crucial issue of granting loan in terms of credit card but when the holder of the credit card committed default any payment of money against the credit card no loan can be availed of for purchase of car or any commodity. The outstanding balance against the credit card no.4550381542657002 in the Citi Bank is on record of that bank and there cannot be any denial or any scope of dispute. The complainant because of her own fault made the matter complicated and for which she cannot take advantage for her own fault. The o.ps. took all steps to remove the name of the complainant from the CIBIL considering the factuality and legality circumscribed by the dealings and antecedents of the claimant. The o.ps. denied that they adopted any unfair trade practice or committed any deficiency in service for which the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.4 did not contest the case and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.4.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant applied for credit card to o.p. bank?
- Whether the name of the complainant recorded in the CIBIL was due to the fault of o.p. bank?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant applied for obtaining credit card from o.p. bank and she applied for the said card in the year 2008. At the time of obtaining the credit card all the documents were provided to o.p. no.1. The complainant subsequently received a letter dt.8.7.08 issued by o.p. no.3 whereby it was denied to issue any credit card in favour of the complainant. The said letter reached at the address of the complainant. The complainant never made any application for change of her mailing address. The complainant never asked for change of her address. After receiving the letter on 18.9.08 she directly approached to the concerned officer of the bank and she was informed that they will make necessary enquiry. The complainant applied for car loan to o.p. no.4 but o.p. no.4 did not entertain the application of the complainant since her name was recorded in CIBIL. Because of such harassment caused to the complainant, she had to file this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for taking steps for removing the name of the complainant from CIBIL as well as other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 to 3 argued that the application filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer and she cannot get any relief under C.P. Act. Only she alleged that she has not been allowed to be a credit card holder by the bank, therefore since there was no relationship between the complainant and the bank, therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable. It was further argued that after scrutinizing all the documents filed by the complainant the credit card was not issued in her favour and accordingly the same was rejected. The o.ps. without getting the changed address of the complainant it was not possible for the purpose to change the mailing address and accordingly o.ps. rightly acted upon the changed mailing address of the complainant and issued credit card to her. There was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. bank and thereby o.p. bank prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant applied to o.p. bank for getting credit card and it is also an admitted fact that the credit card was sent to the complainant by o.p. bank as per the address given by her. The complainant stated that she did not get the credit card. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant while approached the o.p. no.4 for obtaining car loan by using the card it was found that her name was recorded in CIBIL. The complainant after seeing her name in CIBIL she became anxious and made contact with o.p. bank and subsequently she claimed that she never provided any address whereby the card was sent in the said address. On the basis of the said fact the complainant met the bank officials and the bank officials made an enquiry and subsequently the matter was resolved between the parties which is crystal clear from the petition filed on behalf of the complainant. Since such development has occurred between the parties during the pendency of this case, therefore we hold that the complainant’s grievance was fulfilled by o.p. bank and therefore the complainant will not be entitled to get any further relief from this Forum and accordingly we hold that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.85/2011 is dismissed on contest against the o.p. nos.1 to 3 and dismissed ex parte against the o.p. no.4 without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
