BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No: 246 of 2010 Date of Institution : 27.04.2010 Date of Decision : 25.05.2011 Arun Kumar Aged 44 years s/o Late Sh.Jagatri Lal, R/o H.No.3220, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1] ICICI Bank, through its Manager, Credit Card Division, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. 2] The Manager, ICICI Bank, Credit Card Division, SCO No.181-182, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. 3] ICICI Bank, Corporate Office, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051 ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Arun Kumar, Complainant. Sh Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the OPs. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Arun Kumar against ICICI Bank under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Factually speaking, the complainant is an Advocate by profession and a regular customer of OP-1. OP-1 had issued two credit cards to the complainant he has been using the same for the past many years and paying dues regularly. In the month of March, 2010, the complainant planned to purchase a car after taking loan from the bank. Accordingly, he took quotations from Modern Automobiles and booked a Maruti Swift Dzire VDI Car after paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 9.3.2010 as booking amount. The complainant then approached State Bank of Patiala, district Courts, Sector 17, Chandigarh and applied for a Car Loan of Rs.4.50 lacs. All documents as desired by the bank at that time were also submitted by the complainant. The processing fee of Rs.2250/- was also paid. After completion of all formalities, the said Branch of the State Bank of Patiala (SBOP) has sent the complete file of the complainant to their Zonal Office for approval of the Car Loan. The complainant was thereafter surprised to be informed that his loan has been rejected on the ground that his name figures in the defaulter’s list of CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited). The report of CIBIL had been obtained by the Zonal Office of the SBOP on 18.3.2009. The complainant was informed that on 5.2.2009 a sum of rs.67,015/- was shown as “WRITTEN OFF” against his Credit Card. The complainant informed the bank that the amount shown in the CIBIL Report was not due against him. The complainant thereafter obtained a copy of the CIBIL Report from the Loanee Bank and personally approached OP-1 & 2 and made enquiries regarding the amount of Rs.67,015/- against his Credit Card as mentioned in the report of CIBIL. The complainant was informed verbally that the system was not showing any amount due from him against his Credit Card as mentioned in the CIBIL Report. The complainant thereafter approached CIBIL directly to get his name cleared as the amount mentioned in the report was not outstanding against him. The complainant has attached copies of the correspondence between him and CIBIL. On checking of previous records, the complainant found that on 13.5.2005 OP-3 had sanctioned a Car Overdraft to the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,17,000/-. After inception of Over Draft Facility, the complainant had regularly deposited all due amount in Sector 35 Branch of OP-3. When the complete amount was paid, the complainant wrote a letter dated 26.9.2007 to ICICI Bank Limited, Sector 35, Chandigarh for clearing his Over Draft Facility. The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.490/-, which was due at that time, returned the cheque books to the bank vide letter dated 26.9.2007. Copies of the correspondence between the complainant and the bank have been placed at annexures along with the complaint. The complainant had also asked the bank to issue a No Due Certificate for removal of Hypothecation from the R.C. of the Car. The complainant then sent a mail on 22.3.2010 to the Customer Care of OP-1 requesting for issuance of letter/certificate to the fact that amount of Rs.67,015/- was not due against him on 5.2.2009. Meanwhile Modern Automobiles informed the complainant that the car was ready for delivery within 3 days and the complainant could take the delivery after making payment. Unfortunately,the complainant was unable to take the delivery of the car as SBOP did not issue the loan because the name of the complainant was given in the defaulter’s list of CIBIL by OP No.1 & 2. The Car was, therefore, sold by Modern Automobiles to another customer. Meanwhile, the OPs requested the complainant to send his Credit Card and Pan CarD Number. As per the report of CIBIL the default of payment has been committed by the complainant in Account No.8000 0050 2478 3005. the complainant has alleged that he informed the OPs that he never had any account of this number with the Bank. The OPs in reply kept asking the complainant to prove more documents regarding his identity. Despite providing all documents, the OP-1 & 2 failed to give any clearance to the complainant and hence the loan of the complainant was finally rejected. The complainant thereafter desired to purchase a Honda Jazz Car. Accordingly he again requested OP-1 to issue clearance certificate at the earliest so that he could avail discount of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- being offered by the company on purchase of car on or before 31.3.2010. When the complainant visited the office of OP-1 on 29.3.2010, he learnt that the bank had maintained a Dummy Account for their own records with regard to the Car Overdraft Facility, which the complainant was availing since 2005 and Account Number 632205005320 was given to the complainant. The bank officials admitted their fault and also told that their credit card team has wrongly given the name of the complainant in CIBIL against Dummy Account NO.8000 0050 2478 3005 whereas his loan of car overdraft Account NO.632205005320 was already closed in the year 2007. Both OP No.1 & 2 promised to give the clearance to the complainant at their end. The complainant once again approached SBOP and demanded the letter vide which his car loan had been rejected. The complainant then visited the office of OP-1 & 2 on 31.3.2010 and on his request, OP-2 gave him Statement of Account No.8000 0050 2478 3005 in which the balance was shown as NIL. On 1.4.2010 the Customer Care of OP-1 sent an e-mail to the complainant at Car Overdraft Account No.632205005320 was closed on 4.10.2007 and there is no amount due against the complainant. The complainant thereafter got the booking of his car cancelled. The complainant then issued a legal notice to the OPs to settle the matter but the OPs never took any steps to get the name of the complainant removed from the defaulter’s list of CIBIL. The complainant had also himself made a request to the CIBIL on 5.4.2010 in this regard. The CIBIL sent a reply to the complainant on 8.4.2010 asking him to contact the bank in case of deletion of his credit information. As the OPs failed to take any steps to help the complainant to get the name of the complainant deleted from the defaulter’s list from CIBIL despite so many reminders and correspondence, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the opposite party No.1 to 3 may be directed: (a) to remove the name of the complainant from the defaulter’s list of CIBIL (b) to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards Deficiency in service, mental torture, harassment, damage to professional reputation, defamation, lowering down the reputation and image in the banks, court, Modern Automobiles and in public, due to intentionally giving the name of the complainant in the defaulter’s list of CIBIL. (c) to pay interest @24% per annum on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of booking of the car till 3.4.2010. (d) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation charges. During the course of proceedings, the complainant provided information that his name had been removed from the defaulter’s list of CIBIL by his own efforts. 2] After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. The OPs filed joint reply. They have stated that without admitting any deficiency in service on the part of OPs, it is submitted that the account of the complainant has already been closed and intimation has been given to CIBIL in respect of the same. The CIBIL has also updated its record in respect of the same. Granting or non-granting of loan to the complainant by any other bank is the sole discretion of such bank and may depend on a number of circumstances. The clarification regarding the account has already been duly provided to the complainant hence the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The OPs have also attached the copy of CIBIL report dated 7.10.2010. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the complainant in person and ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record. 5] The agitation of the complaint regarding the deficiency in service of the OP is obviously justified. A well meaning citizen of Society with an apparently good banking tract record has been denied a loan for a vehicle because of a wrong calculation/posting of account by the OPs. The complainant had wished to purchase a new vehicle for which he had paid an advance to Modern Automobiles and had applied for a loan to State Bank of Patiala. Even though the officials of SBOP, according to the complainant, were very positive about the sanction of loan, the loan was eventually denied to the complainant because of the information contained in the CIBIL Report. A copy of the CIBIL report has also been placed at annexure. The complainant has thus filed a complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service, mental torture, harassment and damage to professional reputation etc. The OPs in their very brief reply, without admitting any deficiency in service, have submitted that the account of the complainant has been closed and information to CIBIL has already been granted. The records of CIBIL have also been updated. It seems that the OPs are well aware of the mistake committed by them and have no case to plead against the allegations made against them by the complainant. The action of the OPs has thus resulted in a lot of harassment and inconvenience to the complainant for which he has filed the instant complaint. 6] The OPs have placed on record the judgment of Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission passed in Appeal No.259 of 2010 – Sidhima Paul Garg vs. HDFC Bank & Anr., decided on 10.3.2011. as per this judgment, the Hon’ble State Commission has held that :- “8……In these circumstances, the complainant should have requested the CIBIL Authority for the removal of his name from the list of defaulters. Moreover as the complainant has not impleaded the CIBIL as a party, thus the learned District Forum has no locus standi to pass any order against the CIBIL who was not a party to the proceeding and there is nothing wrong with the learned District Forum to decline the prayer made by the complainant regarding the issuance of the direction to the bank to remove the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters i.e. from Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. (CIBIL).” This judgment, however, does not apply to the instant case as the complainant has not asked for any relief against CIBIL. In fact he has stated in his complaint that he has got his name removed from the defaulters list of CIBIL by his own efforts. As per the order of Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission, it was held that ‘the learned District Forum is justified by not directing the bank to remove the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters i.e. from CIBIL. Thus, the order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper and no interference is called for and the appeal filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.’ This Forum does not need to pass any order to either direct the CIBIL or the OP Bank to remove the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters of CIBIL as the needful has already been done. 7] Taking into account the above facts & circumstances, we opine that the grievance of the complainant is absolutely justified and deficiency in service on the part of OPs is writ large and hence they need to be penalized for their deficient & wrongful act as a result of which the complainant had not only suffered great harassment but humiliation too. We therefore allow this complaint in favour of the complainant. The OPs are, jointly & severally, directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation as well as Rs.7000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.4.2010 till the date of actual payment to the complainant besides the payment of Rs.7000/- towards litigation expenses. 8] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 25.5.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
