BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.175/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 25^th May 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to issue insurance policy bond w.e.f. 06.09.2013 and to revoke CIBIL entry Made in the account of the complainant and for damages of Rs.18,00,000/-.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant has availed the loan of Rs.36,12,713/- from opposite party bank for purchase of house.  The rate of interest was Rs.10.25% p.a. Out of the said amount, Rs.1,48,713/- was sanctioned towards insurance amount.  The complainant was paying instalment of Rs.2,134/- towards insurance amount, apart from payments towards housing loan.
3.     Later, the complainant came to know that the SBM and LIC and HFSL bank will charge lesser rate of interest on housing loan.  As such, he has approached SBM, LIC and HFSL bank and he has informed that there is already a policy bond existing. The opposite party without collecting the amount through ECS as directed by the complainant to pay the same by cheque. Thereby, committed deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Then he came to know that there is CIBIL entry relating to his account by the opposite party bank.  Thereby, he could not get the loan either from SBM or LIC or HFSL.  It also amounts to deficiency in service.  As such, the complainant has sought for an order against opposite party.
4.    Opposite party appeared through the advocate and filed the following version:- It is not correct to say that the complainant has sanctioned loan of Rs.36,12,713/-.  On the other hand, he has sanctioned loan of Rs.34,64,000/- only towards housing loan and remaining amount of Rs.1,48,713/-  was sanctioned towards insurance amount. It is not correct to say that complainant was paying EMI towards housing loan and insurance loan regularly.  In fact, he has a regular defaulter since from beginning.  The complainant has requested for insurance policy bond.  But, the policy bond has already been given to the complainant on 11.10.2013 itself by speed post and he was informed to execute the indemnity bond to secure duplicate insurance policy, he has not complied with the same and duplicate policy bond was not issued. At the time of availing the loan, the complainant has furnished the bank details of SBM, Saligrama Branch, K.R.Nagar Taluk for the purpose of recovering the EMI from his account.  The complainant from very 1^st instalment was a defaulter either for having insufficient funds in his account or due to non-updation of ECS facility by the complainant’s bank.  Thereby, the complainant was called upon to arrange the payment by cash or cheque.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  It is correct to say that the complainant has approached the opposite party to recall the entries in CIBIL, it was brought to the notice of complainant that Credit Investigation Bureau is a centralized agency which updates the credit worthiness of every customer.  Thereby, the present complaint is not maintainable.  As such opposite party sought for dismissal of this complaint.     
5.     On the above contention, this matter is set down for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, he has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on documents and further evidence closed. Likewise opposite party’s Manager has filed affidavit evidence and further evidence closed. After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.    
6. The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not providing the original policy bond and also committed any error in entries made with CIBIL relating to the account of the complainant?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:-  The complainant has given evidence to the effect that he was not a defaulter in repaying either amount towards housing loan or amount towards insurance loan.  The opposite party has disputed this aspect and submitted documents stating that complainant is a chronic defaulter in repayment of both loans, in spite of the demand made by the bank.  Thereby, there is reference to CIBIL and infact the complainant was issued the policy in 2013 itself, the complainant has raised objections in this regard in 2015 and now come up with this complaint alleging deficiency of service for non-supply of insurance policy bond.
9.    This Forum has gone through the account statement relating to the loan account of the complainant from 1^st September 2013 till January 2017.  The complainant was dispersed with loan of Rs.34,64,000/- + Rs.1,48,713/- on 06.09.2013 itself.  It is monthly EMI, the complainant ought to have deposited towards said loan. But, by going through the accounts extract furnished by the complainant as well as by opposite party, it is clear that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in repaying the loan, though he has paid amounts, not paid well within the stipulated date every month.  On the other hand, the complainant deposited amounts at his convenience and there is no regularity in repayment of the loan particularly the housing loan.  In fact, the accounts relating to housing loan discloses ECS cannot be cleared for funds insufficient.  It is not only once, there are number of times, same entries are made in the loan account of the complainant.  For this, the opposite party bank has charged Rs.300/- on each occasion.  There is no regularity in repayment of the instalments towards loan account by the complainant.  If such being the case, can any financier wait till the complainant discharge his loan is a question?  When complainant failed to repay the instalment as agreed. Opposite party Bank intimated the CIBIL to entry his account.  Accordingly, there is an entry in CIBIL and the complainant was not able to get any loan from other financial institutions.  As per the complainant version, the entry made in the CIBIL by the opposite party itself deficiency in service.  But, such submission of the complainant cannot be accepted.  EMI is to be remitted when a date is fixed by the bank i.e. opposite party bank.  But, there is inordinate delay in remittance of each instalments by the present complainant and his contention is that he has updated payment till filing of the complaint, all the instalments.  But, though amount is remitted to the opposite party bank i.e. not regular as per the EMI.  At this stage, it cannot be said there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
10. So far as non-supply of insurance policy bond is concerned that the opposite party has given POD number in the entries given by the complainant as well as version and affidavit evidence.  The loan was sanctioned on 06.09.2013.  Whereas, the complainant alleges that the policy was not given to him as per his representation only after 21.08.2015 if such being the case can the complainant say that he has not received the insurance policy is also to be seriously viewed.  When the insurance was in September 2013, the complainant has waited to get the policy till August 2015.  Thereby, there is lapses on the part of complainant in not demanding the policy bond even otherwise he is at liberty to get the copy of insurance policy by executing the indemnity bond, that has not been done by the complainant, in spite of advice made by the opposite party.  In the circumstances, this Forum finds that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Thereby, complainant is not entitled for any reliefs sought in this regard.  Accoridngly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, complainant is not entitled for reliefs in this case.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Give a copy of this order to both parties.