D.O.F:28/09/2019
D.O.O:10/06/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.187/2019
Dated this, the 10th day of June 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Vijith Kumar. N.K aged36 years
S/o Narayana
Sayee Nivas, Battampara
Near : Krishna Talkies
Kasaragod – 671121 : Complainant
(Adv: Harshitha.K.M)
And
1. Indus India Bank Ltd represented by
Its Branch Manager, Kasaragod
2. Indus India Bank Ltd represented by
Its Chief Manager 34,G.N Chetty Road,T. Nagar : Opposite Parties
Chennai – 600017
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
That the complainant is a petty businessman by profession, the complainant has obtained a vehicle loan from Opposite Party No:1. (Loan No. ED 102516H). The last installment of the loan payable is on or before 18/08/2017. After obtaining the loan the complainant met with a road traffic accident and he could not remit the installments properly and close the loan on 18/08/2017 as per the agreement. The loan became arrear and finally on 18/06/2018 the complainant remitted the entire loan amount with interest and closed the loan. The complainant has re-paid a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- as loan amount with interest.
2. After the closure of the above loan, the complainant approached Karnataka Bank, Kasaragod branch for a housing loan. On scrutiny of the records , the Karnataka bank authority in formed the complainant that loan is pending before Opposite Party No:1 and hence they are not in a position to sanction loan to the complainant. The complainant suffered hardship and financial loss for the reason denial of the loan. All the banks are maintaining the records of persons who obtained loan and their performance in repaying the loan amount. The same is called as “Cibil” in banking sector and on going through the ‘Cibil” it is showing arrears of loan from the side of the complainant. The Opposite Party No:1 did not up loaded latest data in their site. There is a gross deficiency in service on the matter Opposite parties liable to compensate the complainant. Relief is claimed for compensation and costs.
3. The Opposite party filed written version denying the allegations. The averment of the complainant is not fully correct. It is true that the petitioner had taken a two wheeler loan from M/s Indusind bank starting from24/08/2013 to 21/07/2016. The complainant is initially mentioned the expiry date as 18/08/2017 with some ulterior motive to get some unlawful gain from the Commission. Actually the loan was expired on 21/07/2016. That the averment in the paragraph 2 of the complaint that after the closure of the above loan, the complainant herein approached Karnataka Bank, Kasaragod branch for a housing loan and on scrutiny of the three records Kartaka Bank authority informed complainant that the loan is pending to the complainant and they are not in a position to sanction loan for the reason and that the averment in the paragraph 5 of the complaint that the boundan duty of the bank authority to up load the latest data in their site within time and the Opposite party No:1 failed to do same and there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party No:1 and Opposite party No: 1 has handled the matter in careless manner and the act of the Opposite parties are against fair trade practice and rules prevailing in banking sector and the Opposite party No: 2 is managing all the affairs of Opposite party No: 1 and hence Opposite party No: 2 also liable to compensate the petitioner are all false and denied herewith. Bank already intimated the same to cibil also. Deficiency in service denied and stated that complainant is a chronic defaulter and never paid EMI as agreed. Meanwhile the complainant filed a PLP and matter was settled in the mediation. It is submitted that the Opposite party has given no due certificate as well as NOC to cancel the Hypothecation endorsement. The Opposite party have no control over the day to day affairs of ‘Cibil’. After closure of the loan Opposite parties intimated the facts of ‘Cibil’ the Cibil updated the same in the site promptly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party and not liable for any payment.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext A1 to A5 marked. Ext A1 is copy of complaint filed before DLSA, Ext A2 is letter dt. 19/08/2019 issued by Karnataka Bank, Ext A3 is statement of account, Ext A4 is copy of Trans union Cibil Dt. 19/07/2018, Ext A5 is the copy of Trans union Cibil dt: 24/04/2019, Ext A6 is the payment receipt dt: 18/06/2018. Opposite Party No:1 filed chief affidavit . Opposite Party No:1 produce a document which is marked as Ext B1. Ext B1 is Cibil score card version 3.0Dt: 02/12/2021.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents
Considering the rival contentions following points arise for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficincy in service from the part of Opposite party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation?
- If so for what reliefs?
For convenience all the points are considered together there are several consequences when default is made. Bank will report repayment behavior to the Trans Union Cibil (Formerly known as cibil) once default payments start reflecting in the credit history, it will bring down credit score. Hence future loan applications is likely to be rejected. In 1994, the Reserve Bank of India introduced a scheme to include the collection and dissemination of defaulter information about who deliberately makes no payments. In 2022 RBI requested banker to send defaulter data directly to the trans union Cibil. Currently Trans Union Cibil maintains a database of all suit filed and non- suit filed accounts, out of which only satisfied accounts can be accessed on their official website by the general public.
However the amount is settled, bank also required to report . this to ‘CIBIL’ so they can update their records.
If any benefit is obtained in payment of dues Cibil will reflect a “Settled account”, even if the claim is dropped . it will remain for 7 years. Any discrepancy might lead to the bank rejecting loan application for loan. No dispute is raised to CIBIL.
As per complaint loan should have been closed an 18/07/2018, but bank say due date is 21/07/2016. Grievance of complainant is that to upload data is the duty of bank and they failed to do it in time. Bank says that liability is due as on 21/07/2016 and not 2017.
CIBIL authorities are not made as parties to the complaint. Any entry maintained by CIBIL is not within the control or authority of Opposite party bank. Thus complainant did not approach CIBIL for removal of any such entry as and when they concerned about it. In any event there is no evidence to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of Opposite party bank.
Hence considering the evidence on record complaint is devoid of any merits and is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of complaint filed before DLSA
A2- Letter dt: 19/08/2019 issued by Karnataka Bank
A3- Statement of account
A4- Copy of Trans union Cibil dt: 19/07/2018
A5- The copy of Trans union Cibil Dt:24/04/2019
A6- Payment receipt Dt.18/06/2018
B1- Cibil score card version 3.0Dt: 02/12/2021.
Witness Examined
Pw1-Vijith Kumar.N.K
Dw1- Alphonsa Thomas
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
