BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 337 of 2015
Date of Institution: 26.5.2015
Date of Decision: 01.07.2016
Balram Singh s/o S. Chanchal Singh R/o VPO Mianwind Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, Distt. Tarn Taran
Complainant
Versus
- Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited, Aggarwal Millenium 123E, Netaji Subhash Place,Wazirpur,Delhi through its Chairman/President/Secretary
- HDFC Bank, Ranjit Avenue ,C-Block, Amritsar through its manager
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Amandeep Saini,Advocate
For Opposite Party No.1 : Sh.Pardeep Arora,Advocate
For Opposite party No.2 : Sh.Vivek Vermani,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Balram Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is serving in the police department and he applied for housing loan with opposite party No.2. The complainant completed all the formalities required for granting the housing loan and even submitted the documents required by opposite party No.2. PAN Card number of the complainant is AMCPS3485K. That despite completing all the formalities and submission of required documents, loan case of the complainant was not sanctioned and it was informed to the complainant that his case has been put before opposite party No.1. For further information, complainant made enquiry from CIBIL regarding the fate of his loan case and he got a shock that the record of CIBIL has been showing the name of some other person namely Balaji Balram Singh Yundluri against the PAN of the complainant. Thereafter complainant requested the opposite parties as well as its officials many a times to correct the mistake, but no action has been taken. The complainant got served legal notice dated 8.4.2015 upon the opposite parties but despite service of legal notice, opposite parties have failed to comply with the provisions made in the said legal notice uptil now which has necessitated the filing of the present complaint. The complainant has sought for grant of following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
(a) Opposite parties may be directed to discontinue the deficiency in service and do the needful in the matter.
(b) Opposite parties be directed to sanction the loan case of the complainant.
(c ) Opposite parties may also be directed to take out the PAN number of the complainant from CIBIL.
(d) Compensation of Rs. 50000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, both the parties appeared and contested the instant complaint by filing separate written statements.
3. In its written statement , opposite party No.1 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.1 on the ground that complainant is not a consumer of opposite party under the Act ; that opposite party No.1 does not carry on business nor have a branch office for personal working for gain at Amritsar or in the State of Punjab . No cause of action, as alleged or otherwise, has arisen against opposite party No.1 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum ; that opposite party No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Hoechst House, 6th Floor, 193, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai and is engaged in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling, collating, collecting, processing and maintaining a data bank of credit information relating to both individuals and entities of all types whether incorporated or not, for the use of banks, financial institutions, dealing with the distribution of credit. As such instant complaint is barred under section 31 of CICRA ; that the credit information is the credit history of previous and current borrowing(s)/credit(s) availed by both individual and entities like partnership firms, proprietary concerns, private and public limited companies etc. This information is applicable on all loan products, credit cards etc. The CICRA allows the creation of credit information companies which enable the banks to readily access the full credit history of any borrower. The opposite party No.1 helps the credit grantors to access the complete history of credit applicant’s credit record spread over different institutions. Opposite party No.1 only acts as a repository of credit information. The complainant is not a consumer under opposite party No.1 ; that on receipt of the complaint, opposite party No.1 conducted a detailed analysis in respect of the grievance of the complainant with respect to his credit information appeared in the Credit Information Report bearing control No. 587,166,407 and based on the grievances set out in the complaint as also the information appearing in the CIR, segregated the two CIRs based on their PAN Nos. Opposite party No.1 has since rectified the CIR of the complainant and shall forward the rectified CIR to the complainant with an apology for the inconvenience . As the grievances of the complainant have been redressed by the opposite party No.1, this complaint has become infructuous and may be dismissed against opposite party No.1. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In their written reply, opposite party No.2 also took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complaint is quite vague and indefinite and cannot be looked into by any court of law. No document in support of the allegations in the complaint qua HDFC Limited has been placed on the court file. It is simply alleged in the complaint that the complainant approached opposite party No.2 for getting house loan . But, however, no month and date has been given and further more no application number has been mentioned in the complaint. It is nowhere mentioned if any processing fee has been paid to HDFC Limited or not. In the absence of the necessary particulars, it is not possible for the opposite party to find out and enable the opposite party and connect to which application/loan the complainant is referring to in the complaint. In such a situation, opposite party No.2 is unable to file a proper and effective reply ; that the law on the point is quite clear, that where a complainant sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list and he shall produce it in court where the complaint is presented by him and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof to be filed with the complaint. As already submitted herein above no document has been filed and placed on the court file as such no document shall be received in evidence on behalf of the complainants at the hearing of the complaint ; that as per the allegation in the complaint itself and subject to the submission made hereinabove the complaint is not maintainable as the relationship of the complainants with the opposite parties are of a intended borrowers and debtors and not a consumer ; that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It is submitted herein that the process for disbursement of loan is governed by different central and state authorities and financial institution with their respective guidelines. The replying opposite party as a banker has its own policy and procedure derived from set of guidelines. If the documents are produced as desired by the opposite party and the title to the property is found to be clear and marketable, then the opposite party disburses the loan and not otherwise ; that as per the allegations in the complaint itself in para 2 , it is alleged that against PAN number the name of “Balaji Balram Singh Yundlur” with the CIBIL. This assertion itself is sufficient to reject the loan request of the complainant; that in view of the facts detailed herein above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any stretch of imagination . On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
5. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Amandeep Saini,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Pardeep Arora,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sh. Satish Pillai,Managing Director Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
7. On the other hand Sh.Vivek Vermani,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Nandan Singh Rawat,authorized representative Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
8. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
9. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes amply clear that mistake by CIBIL while mentioning the name of one “Balaji Balram Singh Yundluri” against PAN number of the complainant, as defaulter, has since been rectified by opposite party No.1 and it is also stated that intimation in this respect will be sent to the complainant in due course. Further remaining claim of the complainant against HDFC Bank is not found made , because the complainant has not given any details regarding the house loan application filed by him. So much so not even the date or application number has been mentioned for the reasons best known to the complainant. The complaint is quite vague and indefinite. It is simply alleged in the complaint that complainant approached opposite party No.2 to get housing loan , giving no month and date . So much so even no application number has been mentioned. It is nowhere stated, if any processing fee has been deposited by the complainant with HDFC Limited , if so, to what amount . In the absence of the necessary particulars, it was not possible for HDFC to make a reply or to undertake even fishing searches into huge loan records of the bank. As per allegations in the complaint itself the complaint is not maintainable as relationship of the complainant with opposite party is that of an intended borrower and debtor respectively which does not fall under the purview of term “consumer”. In this regard reference can be made to K.K.Foams Industries Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation 1(2004) CPJ 41 decided on 30.4.2003 wherein it has been laid down that the relationship of the complainant with the opposite party was of a borrower and a debtor. Hence, transaction involved is only of borrower and debtor- complainant not consumer. To the similar effect is the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. Aggarwal Dyeing Industries Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation II(1991) CPJ 341 (NC) . There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Process of disbursement of loan is governed by different central and state authorities and financial institutions with their respective guidelines. Replying opposite party is a bank and has its own policy and procedure derived from set of guidelines. When a customer applies for a loan, the replying opposite party on satisfaction of credit worthiness of the customer to repay the loan amount sanctions the loan. It is imperative for the opposite party to verify the address, employment, source of income before the sanction of the loan and in the same process field verification is also done to ascertain the residential address of the customer and evaluation of loan eligibility etc. Opposite party incurs the expenses and the same are taken from the customer as processing fee/administration charges which are non-refundable. Thereafter replying opposite party on satisfaction in principle sanctions the loan facility on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The actual disbursement of the loan is subject to the legal and technical clearance. After the loan is sanctioned in principle, the customer is to approach for actual disbursement of the loan. He or she is required to deposit with the replying opposite party the original title deed, previous original title deeds of the property and other documents required by the opposite party to arrive at a decision for giving bank credit. If the documents are produced as desired by the opposite party and the title to the property is found to be clear and marketable, then the opposite party disburses the loan and not otherwise. In this case it is no where stated that these formalities have been completed by the complainant. Even otherwise also, the complainant cannot compel opposite party No.2 to grant him the credit facility even though he has completed all the formalities because it is prerogative of the bank to grant the loan or not. Reliance in this connection can be on I(1993) CPJ II (NC) Ashok Prabhakar Vs. SBI wherein it has been held that it is for the bank and financial institution to decide whether to assist any individual with term and working capital loans. If in their judgement they find that a party is not credit worthy or the project proposed to be financed is un viable, it cannot be mentioned that the refusal to finance the unit constitute deficiency in banking services. Further reliance can be had on III(1993) CPJ 322 (NC) wherein it has been laid down that the banks have considerable discretion in the matter of sanction of loan etc. Keeping in view all these factors in view the complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable. As such instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 1.7.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
