The Complainant filed the present complaint praying for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 13,60,000/- as damages and an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per day from the date of filing the complaint until the name of the complainant is deleted from the Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report.
2. It is the case of the Complainant that he had availed of a credit card facility from the Opposite Party No. 1 thorough the Opposite No. 2 which facility was made available under the Credit Card No. 4477468651091006. That the credit card limit was for Rs 30,000/- only and he received credit card statements towards the same.
3. It is the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties illegally and unlawfully, in the year 2009 showed the Complainant as defaulter for a total amount of Rs.1,37,122/-. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 and protested that he had never used the credit card making credit of aforesaid amount as indicated in the said statement and that therefore he was not liable to pay any of the said amount. The Branch Manager of the Opposite Party No. 2 instructed the Complainant to approach the Branch Manager of the Branch Office at Panaji whom he approached on several occasions who stated that he could not explain the said transaction and undertook to look into the matter and settle the same.
4.That being a businessman the Complainant approached the State Bank of India Margao Branch for availing a loan for his business project and on account of being shown as a defaulter in the Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report, loan was refused to him causing him inconvenience and hardship.
…3/-
5. That the Complainant contends that he was under the impression for the last three years that his name had been deleted from the Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report, and that he came to know that the same was not deleted only when the State Bank of India Colva Branch brought it to his notice by letter dated 18.8.2012 on account of his name figuring in the Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report as a defaulter
6. He contends that he issued a legal notice dated 3.9.2012 demanding that his name be deleted from the Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report which the said Opposite Party did not comply and therefore the Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that he is entitled to damages as stated above.
7. The Opposite Party No. 3 on receiving the notice on 06-09-2012, issued a legal notice through their advocate Carmen Fernandes dated 23.5.2013 demanding the payment of the said sum of Rs. 1,37,122/- which was replied to by letter dated 15.06.2013, wherein the Complainant denied that he owed any amount to the Opposite Parties, since he had not availed of the credit facility as alleged by them and demanded details of the transactions alleged to have been made by the use of the credit card by him with all the details thereof.
8. The Opposite Party No.3 did not comply with the said demand and did not furnish the details. That disrepute was brought to his name as the reputed bank who was handling his bank transaction and dealings, refused him loan as his name was on Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report and his name was not deleted as requested in the said notice.
9. The Complainant filed the present complaint on 18.09.2013 and the same was admitted on 26.9.2013 and prayed for the reliefs as stated in para 1 above.
…4/-
10.The Opposite Parties were served with the notice. By Order dated 18.8.2014 this Forum was pleased to disallow the written version of the Opposite Parties due to the fact that the same was beyond time which order was upheld by the order of the Hon’ble State Commission dated 07.01.2015.
11.We have perused the complaint, the affidavit in evidence, the written arguments and the documents submitted by the Complainant.
12.The questions that arise for consideration in the present case are:
A. Is the complaint filed within the period of limitation?
B.- Does the Complainant prove that the Opposite Parties illegally and unlawfully and without any basis included in his credit card account Rs. 1,37,122/-,which amount was not availed by him and falsely and maliciously included his name in the Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report as defaulter?
C.- Does the Complainant prove that consequent to the illegal inclusion of his name in the Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report brought to his notice by letter dated 18.08.2012 on account of his name figuring in the Cibil Consumer Credit Information Report as a defaulter he suffered losses of Rs. 13,60,000/- be paid to him as damages and a further amount of Rs.1,000/- be paid to him per day, from the day of filing of the complaint until the date of deletion of his name from the CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India?
13.The Complainant filed the present complaint praying that a sum of Rs 13,60,000 /- be paid to him as damages and a further amount of Rs.1,000/- be paid to him per day from the day of filing of the complaint until the date of deletion of his name from the CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India.)
…5/-
The Forum is taking up all the issues together as they are interlinked and the material on record to consider the issues is the same.
14. The said amount claimed was towards the fact that the Complainant was shown as a defaulter with CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India.) by the Opposite Parties as against his credit card bearing No 4477468651091006. It is further the case of the Complainant that the credit card limit was only Rs. 30,000/- and that he had never used the credit card and credited a sum of Rs. 1,37,122/- .
15. The Complainant did not in any way establish that the said amount of Rs. 1,37,122/- indicated by the Opposite Parties to be due by him was not availed of by him. The Complainant has not discharged the burden which is on him which had to be discharged by bringing the persons in whose favour such credit payment has been made to establish that such expenditure was not incurred by him by using the said credit card facility. The Complainant also would have to prove that he was not liable to pay to the Opposite Party any amount as claimed by them and that the inclusion of his name as a defaulter with CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India) was totally illegal.
16. He would have to further prove that the non grant of the loan to him was solely due to the reason of his name being included in the list of defaulter as mentioned above and for no other reason. Therefore even the non grant of the loan for which the Complainant claims damages is dependent on the fact that the inclusion of his name as a defaulter was totally illegal.
17. Therefore the Complainant ought to have challenged the entries within two years from the intimation to him from the Opposite Parties that he owed the sum of Rs. 1,37,122/- and twenty two in the year 2009. Thus the complaint could be filed by the year 2011 so as to bring the same within the period of limitation.
…6/-
18.Section 24-A of the C.P.A provides for limitation period and imposes a mandate on the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission not to admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. However, sub Section 2 of Section 24 A provides that a complaint may be instituted after a period of two years if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
19.That on following up the matter with the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Panaji , Goa as requested by the Opposite Party No.2 , he was promised that the matter would be looked into and settled.
20.That further it is only when he approached the State Bank of India, Margao Branch for the purposes of securing a loan for his business project, the said loan was refused as he was shown as a defaulter with CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India.), for not clearing the sum of Rs,. 1,37,122.00. as against his credit card bearing No 4477468651091006.with the Opposite party no.2.
21. That the Complainant addressed a notice on the 03-09-2012 to the Opposite Parties requesting deletion of his name from CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India), demanding damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- within fifteen days and Rs.1,000/- per day till his name was deleted from the defaulters list.
22. As the said amount was asked to be paid within a period of fifteen days the Complainant in his complaint stated that the cause of action arose on the 21.09 2012.
23.The Complainant ought to have been prudent and should have pursued the issue soon after the he was shown as a defaulter on
…7/-
15-02-2009 and it does not stand to reason to accept that one would blindly rely on the word of the ‘Branch Manager of the ICICI Bank, Panaji Goa promising to look into and settle the matter' and would not consistently check whether it was done. Besides the Complainant should have followed up and redressed his grievance before the Forum.
24. The Complainant has not even filed any application explaining the delay and praying that the same be condoned. The complaint could have been admitted only in case the delay was satisfactorily explained by the Complainant. An application to be filed by the Complainant for condonation of delay is a requirement of law and only in case the delay in filing the complaint is condoned that a complaint can be ordered to be registered and admitted.
25. The Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (AIR 2009 SC 2210) has stated that Section 24A of C.P. Act is pre-emptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years of the accrual of the cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for reasons to be recorded in writing may condoned the delay in filing the complaint if the sufficient cause is shown. As a matter of law the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if sufficient cause has been shown and the delay condoned for reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and therefore the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. The Apex Court referred to Union of India & anr. (2003 9 SCC 50), wherein it was held that the question of limitation is a mandate to the
…8/-
Forum and, irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the Forum must consider and apply it. Reference was made, to its earlier decision in Harayana Urban Development Authority vs. B.K. Sood (2006 (1) SCC 164).
26.The Complainant has relied on the Order No. CC/10/14 of the Hon’ble Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji in the case of Mr. Joseph Justin Gonsalves V/s. M/s. Elnish Real Estate Developers & Builders which is not applicable to this case.
27. In the circumstances we hold that the Complainant’s approach has been most casual as no application for condonation of delay has been filed before us in order to explain the delay of two years seven months in filing the present complaint. The present complaint is hopelessly time barred and hence dismissed.
