| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.310/2010 Sh. Amit Chawla S/o Sh. J. L. Chawla R/o 178, Deepali Enclave, Near Deepali Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi- 34 ….Complainant Versus Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. Through AGM State Bank of India RACPC Branch, 8th Floor, SBI Building, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001 Also At: Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. Hoechst House, 6th Floor, 193, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 CITY Bank Through its Branch Head Jeevan Bharti Building, 124, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi- 110001 Also At: CITY Bank 164, Anasalai, Chennai- 600002 ….Opposite Parties Date of Institution : 10.05.2010 Date of Order : 04.08.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - On the strength of his complaint, Complainant approached this Commission for direction to OPs to compensate the Complainant jointly or severally with an amount of Rs. 99,950/- @2% p.m. from the date of the complaint till realization and for awarding the cost of the complaint.
- Complainant vide this complaint has stated that Complainant took personal loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 22.08.2007 from CITI Bank(OP-2) which was ultimately closed on 04.02.2009. However, OP-2 had given the status of account as ‘settled’, which means and implies that Complainant was a defaulter in the repayment of loan of the said bank, who had ultimately entered into a ‘settlement’. It is stated that because of this report of CIBIL (OP-1), the SBI RACAP Branch, New Delhi had virtually declined the loan proposal of the Complainant.
- It is stated that OP-2 had reported the update of Complainant’s account as settled to OP-1 on 31.07.2009. Due to the said update Complainant’s loan proposal on 24.06.2009 with another bank was stuck-up because of the report given by OP-1. Alleging, gross negligence on part of both the OPs and deficient services Complainant approached this Forum.
- OP-1 resisted the complaint raising preliminary objection that the Complainant has deliberately mentioned the address of OP-1 as being part of SBI having an office in Delhi merely to bring the present complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is submitted that SBI has no connection whatsoever with OP-1 and
OP-1 has its Registered/Head office in Mumbai, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
- It is further stated that the data reflected by OP-1 in the credit information report is provided by the Member Banks and other Financial Institutions. OP-1 cannot modify any data in the database without the concerned member’s approval. It is stated that in the present case, based on the information received from OP-2 in the month of February, 2009, which mentioned the status against the name of the Complainant as ‘settled’. OP-1 indicated the same on its database. Subsequently, a request was made by OP-2 to delete the words settled, which was promptly deleted by OP-1. Hence, there is no omission on part of OP-1, it is thus requested that complaint be dismissed with the exemplary cost.
- OP-2 filed its written versions stating inter-alia that the present case is that of alleged ‘virtual’ rejection of loan application of the Complainant by State Bank of India and the Complainant has not impleaded State Bank of India, which is a proper and necessary party to the present complaint.
- It is further submitted that Complainant had availed loan facility of Rs.1,50,000/- from OP-2. The Complainant had defaulted in repayment of his dues for January, 2009 as the cheque issued by the Complainant towards repayment was returned twice by his banker. Subsequently, the loan was foreclosed on 04.02.2009. Copy of statement of loan account of the Complainant is annexed as Annexure R/1. It is next stated that OP-2 had sent the ‘No Dues’ certificate to the Complainant in June, 2009, which was prior to the filing of the present complaint therefore any question of alleged wrongful information being supplied by OP-2 does not arise.
- It is further submitted that Reserve Bank of India has issued number of notifications and circulars from time to time wherein all Banks and Financial Institutions have been directed to submit the credit history of borrowers to a CIBIL database. Therefore, in compliance of the RBI Guidelines OP-2 had supplied the credit history of the Complainant to CIBIL, which cannot be treated as deficiency on part of OP-2. It is also stated that the Complainant has made bare and vague allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of OP-2 without any substantive proof of the same. It is thus prayed that as the present matter does not merit indulgence of this Commission complaint be dismissed.
- Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties. Submissions made on behalf of OP-2 are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
- It is not in dispute that Complainant had taken a loan from OP-2 of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 22.08.2007 and the same was ultimately foreclosed on 04.02.2009. It is clear from exhibit RW 1/2 exhibited with the evidence of OP-2 that Complainant’s cheques towards the repayment of loan bounced multiple times during the tenure of payment. As per notifications and circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India, all Banks and Financial Institutions have been directed to submit credit history of borrowers to the CIBIL database. Therefore, incompliance of the provisions of Credit Information Companies (Regulation Act, 2005), OP-2 had provided the credit history of the Complainant to CIBIL(OP-1).
- OP-1 based on the information received from OP-2 in the month of February, 2009 mentioned the status as “Settled” against the name of the Complainant on its website. Subsequently, on 05.10.2009 OP-2 made a request to OP-1 to delete the word “settled” which was updated by OP-1 on 11.11.2009. The email correspondence for the same is annexed as exhibit OPW 1/3 with the evidence of OP-1. The said fact proves that as the status “Settled” was mentioned against the name of the Complainant, it was removed by OP-1.
- It is also seen that Complainant on 07.05.2019 filed an application for permission to file certain document. On perusal of the said document dated 24.06.2009 written to the AGM of State Bank of India by the Complainant it is seen that the loan applied by the Complainant to SBI was not denied, rather it was recommended that the word “settled” be ignored and RACPC was advised to process the proposal. For ready reference the noting of AGM is reproduced as under:-
Sir, Sh. Amit Chawla has applied for HL of Rs. 90 lacs. The CIBIL default reflects the status as settled due to pre-clause of the loan a/c. In view of what Mr. Amit Chawla has stated and as a fair banking risk for high value loans,we recommend that the word ‘settled’ be ignored & RACPC be advised to process the proposal. - The said document reveals that the loan applied for, was not rejected and the same is signed by the AGM on 24.06.2009 i.e. prior to the filing of this complaint on 10.05.2010. The said document was available with the Complainant before the institution of the complaint and no plausible explanation has been given by the Complainant as to why he withheld such an important and relevant document. Complainant could have filed the said document alongwith the complaint. He further got an opportunity to file it with the evidence. It was after filing of the written arguments that the Complainant has filed the same. A perusal of this document reveals that there was no cause of action available to the complainant, on the day complaint was preferred. Complainant sought to create a cause of action and successfully misled this commission to entertain his complaint, by misleading and withholding a relevant document.
- In view of the discussion above, we dismiss the complaint and impose cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the Complainant for withholding the relevant information and unnecessarily the dragging the OPs into litigation. The above said amount is to be shared equally by OP-1 and OP-2. Accordingly, we direct the Complainant to pay Rs. 10,000/- to OPs within three months from the date of order failing which Complainant shall pay Rs. 10,000/- @4% p.a. to OPs till realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
