DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.08/2014
SHRI ISHWAR SINGH SENIOR CITIZEN
S/O LATE SHRI RAM KISHAN, (73 YEARS OLD)
MEK 222, GALI NO. 2 RANGPURI ROAD,
MAHIPAL PUR EXTN. NEW DELHI-110037.
….Complainant
Versus
RETAIL ASSET DIVISION
HDFC BANK LIMITED
NEAR UPHAR CINEMA, GREEN PARK,
NEW DELHI-110017.
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 09.01.2014 Date of Order : 17.10.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The brief facts of the case are that the OP had declared the complainant as defaulter of repaying loan from the last 8 years and as per the record of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (“CIBIL”) account w.e.f. 31.10.2005 complainant is defaulter of arrears of Rs. 13,290/- having a loan amount on two wheeler (scooter/motor-cycle) which was reflected in the name of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had never borrowed any loan from OP in respect of two-wheeler (scooter / motor-cycle) and he had also not taken any loan from any bank. The complainant enquired from the OP wherein the OP informed the loan account No. 432276. On continuous insistence the female official informed him that the above debited account No.432276 belonged to Shri Abdul Rasheed R/o Triuantpuram, Kerala but she refused to give further details of Shri Abdul Rashid. The officials of the OP informed him that they will give the reply. The complainant received a letter from CIBIL office on 11.11.2013 without any serial or dispatch number. Again he had received another letter from HDFC Bank on dated 15.11.2013. That the bank and the CIBIL both tried to pass buck on each other.
According to the CIBIL letter, both particulars were said to be same.
- Name : Ishwar Singh 1. Abdul Rasheed
- S/o : Lt. Sh. Ram Kishan 2. Not Mentioned
- DOB : 07.01.1994 3. Not mentioned
- Address : MEK222, Gali No. 2, 4. Tiruananpuram
Rangpuri Road, Mahipalpur Kerala
Extension, New Delhi-110037.
- Loan Account No. : No number 5. 432276
- PAN Card No. 6. Not Mentioned
HDFP5236L
- Voter ID No. NRX 0928135 7. Not mentioned
- Aadhar Card No. 8. Not mentioned
296242036181
- Phone No. 9. Not mentioned
011-26781158
M-9312258810
- Member 10. Muslim Community
Hindu Vedic
- Passport No. 11. Not mentioned.
It is submitted that the OP held the complainant guilty and destroyed his image due to which all the banks stopped giving loan to the complainant as a result of which the complainant could not purchase new vehicle by replacing his old vehicle and due to the conduct of OP, his business of car rental (tourism) had been closed and the complainant and his family members came at the verge of starvation. Complainant has stated that according to him the OP and the CIBIL have caused him financial economic loss and injury to his reputation and hence the OP and CIBIL are liable to compensate him to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- along with litigation expenses so that he may regain his self-respect and restore his business.
OP in its written statement has inter-alia stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. The complaint and the documents placed on record clearly show that the grievance of the complaint is with regard to his credit ratings which allegations are solely against CIBIL. Despite this position, CIBIL has not been impleaded as the party to this present complaint. It is submitted that the complainant availed Credit Card facility from the bank bearing Card No. 4617872001066074. As per CIBIL record, the complainant’s score is 720 which is not a bad score as the minimum score should not be less than 300 and maximum score 900. OP can only update the actual payment summary of the complainant to the CIBIL and it is the CIBIL who gives the score to the customer on their own as per the payment summary of the said customer. It is submitted that the Auto Loan Account No. 1192139 & Account No. 432276 from HDFC Bank Ltd. reflected in the CIBIL do not pertain to the complainant. It was the inadvertent mistake/ error on the part of the CIBIL due to similarity in the details of two different customers. From the perusal of the CIR (Consumer Credit Information Report) report of the complainant, it is evident that the complainant has total 20 accounts with different banks out of which 16 accounts have been closed and it is the CIBIL which records the summary of payment of all loan accounts. It is submitted that the loan details of some other account holder shown in the Complainant’s CIR is due to CIBIL match logic. The compilation of credit information report is done by the CIBIL on the basis of certain basic parameters such as Name, address, Date of birth, Permanent Account Number (PAN), gender etc; however, the true fact is that the Credit Report was prepared by the CIBIL and Customer identification and matching the correct customer identity is the sole responsibility of the CIBIL. It is further submitted that the CIBIL has accepted its mistake/ error in its letter dated 11.11.2013 issued to the complainant. The relevant para of the letter is reproduced as under:-
“We had done an in-depth analysis on the dispute raised by you and it was observed based on the data submitted to us and our match rules, the CIR generated for you has credit details of another individual/(s) mixed in the report due to similarity in identifying details. We have immediately taken corrective action to separate the information. We would also like to inform you that the accounts and enquiry information reflecting in your CIR impacts your score calculation.
While we apologize for the inconvenience cause, the error was certainly unintentional.”
It is further submitted that the complainant had approached the OP bank and submitted that he had not availed any loan from the OP bank and further alleged that his name had been mentioned in the CIBIL report. After verifying the same and taking up the matter with CIBIL, OP had issued the letter dated 15.11.2013 inter alia informing the complainant that the loan details shown in the complainant’s Credit Report was due to CIBIL match logic. Hence, any issue with regard to match logic reporting need to be taken up with the CIBIL. It was further informed to the complainant that as a service gesture, OP had taken up the matter with CIBIL and details of the Loan Account Number 432276 included in the complainant’s CIR have been rectified. An updated extract under control No. 654059008 was provided to the complainant for his record. Therefore, there is no question of rendering any deficient service on the part of OP as the OP always acts in due course of banking activity and in terms of the Credit Information Companies (Regulations) Act, 2005. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP inter-alia denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri Lalit Pandey, authorized officer has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.
The complainant has not marked the annexures filed by him as exhibit numbers. The complainant has filed copy of the letter dated 11.11.2013 issued by the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (“CIBIL”). We mark it as Mark-A. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under:-
“We refer to the email dated November 07, 2013 regarding discrepancy in your CIBIL Credit Information Report (CIR) forwarded to us by HDFC Bank.
At the outset, we could like to inform you that CIBIL presents a consolidated view of a person’s credit history post collation of data obtained from various Member Credit Institutions.
In order to present the consolidated credit history of a person in a Credit Information Report, there are a few sets of match rules. The CIR is generated only when such rules are satisfied. The includes match on name, date of birth, address, telephone numbers and identifiers like PAN number, Passport number, Voters ID etc. When information in relation to a person whose CIR is to be obtained is fed into the system, a best possible CIR is generated based on the match rules with the available data.
Therefore, when sufficient data elements between two sets of personal data overlap, the information of different accounts are merged in a CIR. The match rules which decide the availability of sufficient data to trigger a merge has evolved over the lifetime of CIBIL, based on regular analysis of the overall consumer data sets (subjects).
We had done an in-depth analysis on the dispute raised by you and it was observed based on the data submitted to us and our match rules, the CIR generated for you had credit details of another individual/(s) mixed in your report due to similarity in identifying details. We have immediately taken corrective action to separate the information. We would also like to inform you that the accounts & enquiry information reflecting in your CIR impacts your score calculation.
While we apologize for the inconvenience caused, the error was certainly unintentional.”
Complainant has filed a copy of acknowledgement provided to the Customer dated 29.10.2013. We mark it as Mark-B, wherein “service request Ractification in CIBIL’ has been made by OP.
OP vide letter dated 15.11.2013, copy marked as Mark-C, has stated that
“Sub : Your Credit Information Report
Case Docket Number: 38450/13-14/0082
Dear sir,
This is with reference to request raised to our Retail Asset Division regarding your Credit Information Report with CIBIL.
Thank you for this opportunity for us to address your concerns with us.
This is to inform you that loan details shown in your Credit Report is due to CIBIL match logic. The compilation of credit information report is done by CIBIL on the basis of certain basic parameters such as Name, Address, Date of birth, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Gender etc.
Customer Identification and matching the correct customer identity is the sole responsibility of the respective Credit bureau (CIBIL). Hence, any issue with regards to match logic reporting need to be taken up with the bureau itself.
However, as a service gesture, we have taken up this issue with CIBIL and details of the loan account Numbers 432276 included in your credit report have been rectified. An updated extract under control No. 654059008 is available for perusal.
We trust that our bank’s position stands clarified to a substantial extent. However, please do feel free to revert in case any further assistance is required.
We value your patronage and assure the best of services at all times.”
In view of the above said documents filed by the complainant himself, before filing the present complaint on 09.01.2014, the CIBIL had already clarified the complaint as above and the OP had already informed the CIBIL decision to the complainant. CIBIL was/is a necessary party to be arrayed in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint even otherwise is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Hence, the complaint ceased to be a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 17.10.2017.
