ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
The complainant is the holder of a credit card bearing no. 4477460721222000. issued by the OP. It is alleged by him that from the website of CIBIL he came to know that he had applied for a vehicle loan and was a defaulter. The complainant took up the matter with the OP he had had never applied for a vehicle loan nor the amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been credited to his account vide demand draft bearing no DAD29120647549 as was alleged by the OP. The complainant lodge complaints which were registered as SR2447820, SR 30862855 and SR 18941889 despite assurances nothing was done by the officials of the OP. The complainant, therefore, served with a legal notice dated 7.12.2014 upon OP but to no result. Hence, this complaint.
The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a reply. It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the complainant is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed. It has, however,admitted that the complainant has been issuedwith a credit card as alleged in the complaint. The defense of the OP is contained in paras 4/ 5 of the reply which are reproduced as under:-
4. That there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite party. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant had made false and frivolous allegations against the OP. It is a matter of record that the complainant never made any police complaint for the alleged non -credit of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in his account. Had the allegations of the complainant been correct, the complainant would surely have made complaints to the police. Non filing of the complaint with police itself suggests that he himself was at fault/ was acting in connivance with his associates to play fraud upon the bank. It is submitted that a demand draft of Rs. 40,000/- was dispatched to the mailing address of the complainant through BSA courier with Airway bill no. W42947 and it was duly delivered on 01.01.2007 having been recieved by one Mr. Rajesh. The said demand draft was encashed on 03.1.2007 and the complainant has never cared to lodge any protest or complainant either with the police authorities or complainant either with the police authorities or the OP. A highly belated legal notice dated 07.12.2007 was recieved by the OP vide reply dated 16.12.2011. The said reply was admittedly recieved by the complainant himself alongwith the complaint. The complainant did not challenge or made any complaint against the information contained in the said reply, and thus the contents thereof are presumed to be admitted by the complainant. It is crystal crear that the complainant has himself ultilized all payment of the legitimate dues of the OP, the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint.
5. That the complainant has falsely alleged that the OP has comitted a deficiency by putting his name in CIBIL and not removing it even despite specific requests by the complainant. It is submitted that the CIBIL is an independent agency over which the OP has no control. CIBIl is an independent body which is not at all controlled by the OP. CIBIL is an orgainzation which collates credit information contributed by its members and disseminates it to lenders, helping them in their credit-decision making it to lenders, helping them in their credit-decision making and lending process. CIBIL only houses credit information i.e. information in loans and credit cards. It maintains the account information of various loan customers and credit card customers, whether they are defaulters or not. According to the credit card with ICICI Bank signed by the borrowing customers, the bank can indeed share the data with CIBIL and there is no restriction on sharing such information regarding the credit card of the complainant with CIBIL, has not committed any deficiency in services. The present complaint is thus deviod of any merits and deserves dismissal.
The OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed,
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have persued the record.
The question for determination in this case is as to whether the OP had granted a vehicle loan of Rs. 7,0,000/- to the complainant and as to whether the amount of Rs 40,000/- was credited to his account or not. In its written statement as reproduced above, the OP hasalleged that it had dispatched a demand draft of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the mailing address of the complainant through BSA courier with Airway bill no. W42947 and that the bank draft was duly deliver dated 1-1-2005 and was received by one Rajesh. It has further stated that the demand draft was encashed on 3-1-2007 and the complainant had never cared to lodge any protest/ complaint either with the police or with it. The OP has, however, failed to place on record any document which shows that it had dispatched the draft in question to the address of the complainant and that the said draft was actually received at the said place. The OP itself has admitted that the draft was not received by the complainant but was received by one Sh. Rajesh . The OP has placed on record a copy of the demand draft allegedly sent by it while filing its written arguments. A perusal of this shows that the demand draft was issued in the name of Sukhbinder Kalra then in the name of the complainant. It is, therefore, clear that the OP has led in evidence of record to place that it had admittedly admitted a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant in releasing the evidence led on record by the OP praying that the said evidence wa s made a theft of some body else. We, are, therefore, inclined to hold that the O was deficiency in rendierng service to the complainant and showing his loan as a defaulter. We, therefore, deficient the OP as under:
- Not to insist on payment of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant on the basis of the alleged advance by means of bank draft as alleged in its reply.
- Update the record of the complainant with CIBIL.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
