Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/962/2017

Bhavjit Singh Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSBC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Lakhotia Adv.

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	962 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	28.12.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	10.01.2019

 

 

 

 

 

Bhavjit Singh Kalra, earlier residing at House NO.320, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh, now resident of House NO.1165, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.  

 

             …..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

1]  HSBC Bank Limited, SCO No.1, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Head

2]  Trans Union CIBIL Limited (Formerly Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited) One India Bulls Centre, Tower 2A, 19^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013

 

 ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE: SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

        MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA      MEMBER

        SH.RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

 

Sh.Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant availed OD Loan facility from Opposite Party No.1 vide Lona Account No.125195768001 on 16.11.2006 and subsequently, on its basis was also issued Cred Card bearing No.4476929994612619 in the year 2007. Thereafter, the complainant got the said account as well as credit card closed from the OPs by clearing the accounts on 9.4.2011 & 9.1.2013 respectively.  It is averred that after closing of said credit facilities, the Opposite Party No.1 put the name of the complainant in CIBIL under Defaulter List and kept on updating the same and reported on 31.12.2016 & 31.7.2015 in violation of Statutory Rules, after passing of 3 to 5 years, to the CIBIL (Ann.C-1 dated 30.1.2017).  It is stated that that as per rules of CIBIL, the credit institution cannot update the date to CIBIL after expiry of 30 days from the termination/closure of Loan Account/Credit Facility,  as thereafter neither any transaction took place in the loan account nor there is any change in the liability of the Borrower and nothing left payable thereafter. Alleging the said act of Opposite Parties as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed.

2]       The Opposite Party No.1/HSBC Bank has filed reply stating that the complainant defaulted in payment of company’s dues against the said loan and then a One Time Settlmenet was arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Party towards full & final settlement of loan and after closure of the loan, the company issued No Due Certificate.  It is stated that the OP No.1 has only shared the information with the credit rating agency which it is statutorily required to do so and there is no provision of removal of the name from the list of the credit rating agency.  It is also stated that all the financial institutions are duty bound to report the status of any loan to the CIBIL as per the Act.  It is further stated that the removal was never part of the settlement and cannot be removed by the Opposite Party even as per law. It is submitted that there is no clause or provision which provides that upgradation cannot be made after 30 days and in fact, the intention of the Act itself is to contain data and information in respect of the credit history of the party concerned and the same requires latest and updated information providing the exact status of the loan accounts/facilities to be reflected therein.  It is not the case of the complainant that any wrong information has been provided to the credit rating agency.  It is submitted that the updating is a regular process which takes place and the bank is under a statutory obligation to provide the latest and updated information to the credit rating agency.  It is stated that there is no intentional, deliberate or malafide intention in updating of information with the credit rating agencies.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.2/CIBIL has filed reply stating that the complaint is not maintainable against it.  It is stated that CIBIL merely reflects the information submitted to it by its member credit institutions and Opposite Party No.2 issued the Credit Information Report (CIR) in a standard format, which acts as a repository of credit information.  Submitted further that it does not create information or provide inputs thereon of its own. It is also stated that Opposite Party No.2 can make correction, deletion or addition of the credit information only after such correction, deletion or addition has been certified as correct by concerned credit institution. It is further stated that Opposite Party No.2, on receipt of the complaint, raised the grievance of the complainant pertaining to Account bearing No.4718610000401571 with Opposite Party No.1 for confirmation of information reflected in the complainant’s CIR as reported by them and/or for issue of necessary instructions for modification, if any, and pursuance thereto, the Opposite Party No.1 vide its email dated 16.1.2018 has sent the OLM (Online Maintenance Form) for updating the information with respect to the said account and to remove the status of SETTLED entry.  It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 has also confirmed the current balance and amount overdue as “Zero” for the said account and thus, the Opposite Party No.2 has complied with its statutory duties.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint qua OP No.2.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant has raised issue of reflecting his name in the CIBIL Report despite having paid back all the loan amount/dues to the HSBC Bank. 

 

7]       The contentions raised by the complainant in the present compliant are untenable and misconceived. The name of each borrower showing track record of loan amount, loan history, repayment regularity,  always stand displayed with CIBIL, the same being a Central Agency to reflect the credit history of any person. When a person took loan from a bank and return it regularly or by default in payment, that will come into picture in credit score rating, enabling all the financial institutions to first assess the credibility of borrower keeping in view his past performance/credit profile before advancing him loan in future.  The statement of accounts shown in the name of complainant in CIBIL is correct and nothing is misleading or false, which may prejudice to his credit history. 

         The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs in the present complaint. 

 

8]       Keeping in view the totality of facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint being without merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th January, 2019                                                        Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER