Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/36/2021

Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Bhardwaj Adv

03 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	36/2021
Date of Institution	:	19.01.2021
Date of Decision	:	03.05.2024

 

                                       

               

Surinder Singh s/o Ram Singh r/o House No. 3119, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Versus

1.     Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL), One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2A, 19th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013 through its Director/Chairman/Authorized Representative.

2.     Surendra Singh S/o Ram Singh R/o Ward No. 3, Mundawae Alwar, Rajasthan-301706

3.     Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Admn. & TPS) Aayakar Bhawan, Ground Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017 through its Authorized representative.

....Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT:-
	Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.1. OP No.2 exparte. Sh.Jaskirat Singh, Adv. and Sh.K.K.Thakur, Counsel for OP No.3.

       

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant has filed the present pleading therein that he was issued a PAN bearing No.BCGPS1949M (Annexure C-1) by OP No. 3 by charging the requisite fee as required, on 29.10.2005. He was using the PAN number for fulfilling all his financial records and keeps on updating the same. In the year 2020, he approached the lender financial institution to avail the construction loan which informed that he is a defaulter in various loans. It was a shocking moment for him as he had never availed any loan facility from any bank or financial institute. He requested the person sitting in the office of lender financial institute to give a printout of the detail of loans being reflected on the official website of OP No.1. He was shocked after perusing the statement (Annexure C-2) as not only one but around 10-15 loan accounts were reflected against his PAN number, in which in most of the loan accounts he was not paying the installments in time. He carefully perused the detail and found that the name mentioned against the PAN number is different from his name as the name of OP No.2 was mentioned against the detail of the customer. The complainant immediately took the matter with OP No.3 which informed that due to mistake the same PAN Number i.e. BCGPS1949M got issued to OP No.2 and the OP No.3 issued the new PAN number i.e. LDIPS1843M to OP No.2 (Annexure C-3). OP No. 3 also issued a letter dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure C-4) wherein it was that PAN number BCGPS1949M was issued to OP No.2 inadvertently and the legal owner of the PAN number BCGPS1949M is complainant. OP No.2 was further told not to use PAN number BCGPS1949M as new PAN LDIPS1843M has been issued to OP No.2. He immediately took the matter with OP No.1 to correct his details on their official website but they did not pay any heed to his request and he wrote an e-mail dated 05.12.2020 (Annexure C-5) wherein he requested to delink different loan account number barring one Gold Loan from his PAN. He also sent the letter dated 22.09.2020 along with email to OP No.1. He did not receive any reply as such he again sent an e-mail dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure) to OP No.1. The OPs did not resolve the issue and, therefore, he has filed the present complaint  praying that the OPs be  directed to correct his CIBIL status on their official website and to pay the compensation and litigation expenses.       
2.         After service of the notice upon OP No.1, they appeared before this Commission through its counsel and filed written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and it. The complainant has neither availed any services for consideration from it nor OP No.1 provided any services to him. OP No.1’s name has changed from Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. to ‘TransUnion CIBIL Ltd.” with effect from 28.07.2016.   It has further been stated that the complaint is not maintainable against it as this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues/grounds raised by the complainant on the following grounds:-

1. OP No.1 is engaged in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling, collating, collecting, processing and maintaining a database of credit information relating to both individuals and entities of all types whether incorporated or not, for the use of banks, financial institutions, etc dealing with the distribution of credit. The OP No.1 functions as a credit information company under the provisions of The Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 ("CICRA") read with The Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 (the "Rules") and The Credit Information Companies Regulations, 2006 (the "Regulations") made under CICRA Furnishing of credit information is strictly to a closed user group of members, individuals and the specified users as permitted/required under the provisions of CICRA and the Rules and the Regulations made thereunder.
2. There are specific provisions under CICRA, namely (a) Section 18 of CICRA which governs the settlement of disputes with / against Credit Information Companies like OP No.1 and (b) Section 31 of CICRA which bars the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum and all Courts (except the Supreme Court  and the High Courts under their respective Writ Jurisdictions) from adjudicating upon disputes against OP No.1.

          Section 18 and 31 of CICRA are reproduced as under:-

18.   Settlement of disputes

(1)   Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute arises amongst credit information companies, credit institutions, borrowers and clients on matters relating to business of credit information and for which no remedy has been provided under this Act, such disputes shall be settled by conciliation or arbitration as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), as if the parties to the dispute have consented in writing for determination of such dispute by conciliation or arbitration and provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.

(2) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be settled or decided:

(a)   by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Reserve Bank,,

b)    within three months of making a reference by the parties to the dispute:

   Provided that the arbitrator may, after recording the reasons therefor, extend the said period up to a maximum period of six months:

Provided further that, in an appropriate case or cases, the Reserve Bank may, if it considers necessary to do so (reasons to be recorded in writing), direct the parties to the dispute to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), for settlement of their dispute in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

3)     Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to all arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996."

31.   Bar of jurisdiction -

No court or authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority, except the Supreme Court and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in relation to the matters referred to in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18."

                It has further been stated that in terms of Section 18 of CICRA, it is clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any dispute on matters relating to the business of credit information is required to be settled solely by arbitration or conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The use of the phrase "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force" in Section 18 of CICRA is a clear indication that CICRA being a special and subsequent legislation (enacted in 2005), shall prevail over the Consumer Protection Act (enacted in 1986) on matters wherein both legislations are deemed to concurrently apply. Hence, on this reason itself, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It has further been stated that in terms of Section 31 of CICRA, no court or authority shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority except the Supreme Court or the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution in relation to the matters referred under Section 18 i.e. disputes arising between credit information companies, credit institutions, borrowers and clients on matters relating to the business of credit information. Hence the jurisdiction of this Commission to hear the said Complaint against the OP No.1 is barred.  It has further been stated that in terms of the provisions of CICRA, OP No.1 cannot unilaterally make any correction to the credit information of the Complainant. OP No.1 only collects credit information from its member credit institutions, collates the information received from several institutions and furnishes a credit report without any inputs of its own. The credit information appearing in the credit information report furnished by OP No.1 is the aggregate of the information submitted to it. Any unilateral correction of the credit information as sought by the Complainant would have rendered OP No.1 liable for penalization under the CICRA. OP No.1 has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh titled Harvinder Singh Johal Vs. The Branch Manager, Housing Bank Pvt. Ltd & Ors (FA. No. 407 of 2012) wherein it was held that there is no privity of contract between the complainant therein and OP No.1. It has further been stated that OP No.1 cannot made any changes as prayed by the complainant. On Merits, OP No.1 has denied all the allegations made against it. Lastly, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.         In their written version, OP No.3 took the preliminary objections that the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Admin & TPS), Chandigarh works on behalf of the Govt. of India and the Income Tax Department is a “regulator” and not a service provider as per Clause 2(40) of Chapter-I of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and as such the present complaint is not maintainable.  It has denied that they charged any fee for provision of PAN. In fact, the complainant had applied to the NSDL vide Acknowledgement No.060340200027844 which is a PAN service provider that collects PAN application on behalf of the Government of India and the fee paid to the PAN service provider has been fixed by the Government of India for processing of PAN applications. It has further been stated that they immediately analyzed the case after obtaining documents from the PAN service provider and found that name of assessee, father of assessee and date of birth of assessee matches except one letter in the name i.e. 'Surinder' instead of 'Surendra' due to which the same PAN was allotted inadvertently to the second person. On receiving the application from the assessee, the Department immediately took the action and got allotted a new PAN LDIPS1843M to the second assessee. A letter in this regard was also issued to the second allotee on 22.9.2020 with direction to not to use PAN BCGPS1949M in his any transaction. It has further been stated that it is the sole responsibility of the credit information company or credit institute to alter the credit information of the borrowers as in this case the complainant i.e. Mr.Surinder Singh had made request to the CIBIL for correction of his credit information. OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is not a service provider but a ‘Regulator’
4.         OP No.2 did not appear despite publication and as such it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.01.2022.
5.        The complainant filed replication to the written replies of OPs No.1 and 3and controverted their stand and reiterating his own.
6.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
7.         The main question involved in the present complaint is whether the complainant is a consumer qua the OPs or not?
8.         From the documentary evidence and submission of the parties, it is observed that none of the OPs fall within the definition of service providers as the complainant had not paid any consideration for availing services of the OPs. The fees paid by the complainant to OP No.3 is the statutory fees and not for acquiring the services from them.  As OP No.3 Commissioner of Income Tax, (Admn. & TPS) is a ‘Regulator’, so it is not a ‘service provider’. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission.
9.         Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of our own Hon’ble State Commission in the judgment titled as Harvinder Singh Johal Vs. The Branch Manager, Housing Bank Pvt. Ltd & Ors (FA. No. 407 of 2012), decided on 01.01.2013 in which it was held as under:-

            “Even otherwise, CIBIL is a statutory body constituted under the Credit Information Company Regulation Act, 2005 and, as such, the complainant had no privity of contract with it and, even if, there was some negligence, on the part of any official of OP No.3, while feeding the data of the complainant in the system, then instead of filing the complaint before the District Forum, the complainant was required to approach the CIBIL for his grievances as per Section 21 of the CICR Act.”

                The ratio of law settled in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble State Commission is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
11.         The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
12.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 03.05.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER