DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/18/450

Date of Institution : 22.05.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 14.09.2022

S. Balbir Singh Grover S/o S. Inder Singh R/o A-345, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.  …Complainant

Versus

1. The Nodal Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Credit Card Division, Kotak Infiniti, Service Assurance Centre, 4th Floor, Zone 4, Bldg. No. 21, Infinity Park, Off. Western Express Highway, General AK Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai.

2. The Nodel Officer, TransUnion CIBIL Limited (Formerly: Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2A, 19th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date.

Present: Sh. Ravi B Mahajan Adv counsel for complainants.

Sh. Sandeep Kapoor Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Pardeep Arora Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant was subscriber of the credit card having No. 5242538000080685 of the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 is the credit rating agency and on whose credit rating and detail furnishing the complainant was legible for the further loan disbursement from any financial institution and his financial credibility. The complainant repaid the entire outstanding amount to the opposite party No. 1 of the said credit card on 28.4.2014 vide cheque dated 28.4.2014 of Rs. 6,500/- which was duly encashed by the opposite party No. 1 and nothing was due and then the complainant never used the credit card and same remained stationed with him. The complainant also make a call on the opposite party No. 1 toll free number regarding closure certificate of the credit card as he was not interested in continuing of of availing the services of credit and executive of the opposite party No. 1 also assured the complainant that the same has already been closed. 

3. It is further alleged that even after that the complainant receiving messages and calls from unknown numbers every month from the side of the opposite party No. 1 with enhanced amount from Rs. 6,000/- to onwards without furnishing any details. The complainant made repeated calls to the opposite party No. 1 in this regard but the opposite party No. 1 did not furnish any details and threatened further to make the illegal demand. Later on the complainant seek the personal loan from Punjab and Sind Bank and when the bank obtained his Cibil report of opposite party No. 2 it was mentioned therein that there is outstanding amount of Rs. 38,618/- of the opposite party No. 1 being reflected as not paid till then so the loan was not sanctioned by the bank. The bank refused to lend personal loan to the complainant based on wrong report of opposite party No. 2 prepared on the date provided by the opposite party No. 1. The complainant made request to the opposite parties to rectify the credit report of the complainant and depict the said amount as repaid and clear the wrong entry of said amount but the opposite party No. 2 not rectified the credit report qua complainant nor the opposite party No. 1 listening the complainant. Even the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties dated 14.4.2018 but of no use which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party No. 1 may be directed not to demand the illegal amount of Rs. 38,618/- and further any interest/penal charges imposed on it and opposite party No. 2 to rectify the credit report of the complainant and clear the outstanding amount of opposite party No. 1 and clear the other wrong entry.  

2) To pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment.

3) To pay adequate litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party. The complainant has concealed true facts from this Forum so the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complainant is a defaulter in respect of the payment of the amount due in respect of the credit card in question and the cheque issued by the complainant dated 28.4.2014 for Rs. 6,500/- has been dishonored for the reason amount/name differ on advice on 1.5.2014. The answering opposite party has requested the complainant to make payment in respect of said credit card but he has filed the present complaint. Furnish, the complainant is working with Punjab and Sind Bank at a senior position and is well versed with the banking procedure and used his knowledge to avoid his liability towards the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that on 15.8.2018 a sum of Rs. 38,618/- is due from the complainant in respect of said credit card. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The cause of action for making payment by complainant dates back to 28.4.2014 but the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2018 i.e. after statutory period of limitation for filing the complaint.  

5. On merits, it is admitted that complainant availed the credit card of the opposite party. Rest of submissions already submitted by the opposite party No. 1 as mentioned in the preliminary objections so there is no need to repeat the same. However,  lastly the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

6. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written version by taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 2 as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No. 2 and complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite party as complainant neither availed any services for consideration from the opposite party No. 2 nor the opposite party No. 2 provided any services to the complainant. Further, this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues raised raised by the complainant in the present complaint against the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 functions as Credit Information Company under the provisions of The Credit Information Companies Regulation Act 2005 read with the Credit Information Companies Rules 2006. Furnishing of credit information is strictly to a closed user group of members, individuals and the specified users as permitted/required under the provisions of CICRA and the rules and the regulations made thereunder. Section 31 of the CICRA bars the jurisdiction of this Forum and all courts except the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts under their respective Writ Jurisdictions from adjudicating upon disputes against opposite party No. 2. In terms of Section 18 of CICRA it is clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force any dispute on matters relating to the business of credit information is required to be settled solely by Arbitration or Conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, there has never been any kind of monetary transaction between the complainant and the opposite party No. 2 so there is no relationship between the complainant and the opposite party No. 2. Further, opposite party No. 2 does not carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain in Amritsar or State of Punjab nor has any cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 within the jurisdiction of this Forum, so complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The opposite party No. 3 neither a necessary nor a proper party in the instant complaint. The Credit Information Report merely reflects the information submitted to opposite party No. 2 by its member credit institutions as required under the CICRA Rule and Regulations. Further, in terms of provisions of CICRA opposite party No. 2 cannot unilaterally make any correction to the credit information of the complainant and opposite party No. 2 is not responsible for the accuracy and veracity of any of the information submitted by the member credit institutions. So, the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party. Further, under Section 30 of CICRA no suit or other legal proceedings can lie against the opposite party No. 2 for anything done by it in good faith or in pursuance of CICRA of any other law for the time being in force. Further, upon receipt of present complaint opposite party No. 2 verified its database and observed that the account bearing No. 5242538000080677 is report by the opposite party No. 1 and not account bearing No. 5242538000080685 as alleged by the complainant in the instant complaint. Opposite party No. 2 has raised the grievance of the complainant pertaining the account No. 5242538000080677 with opposite party No. 2 for confirmation of information reflecting in the complainant's CIR as reported by them and for issue of necessary instructions for modification if any. In reply the opposite party No. 1 vide email database 4.9.2018 confirmed the details report by them are correct. The opposite party No. 1 confirmed the current balance and amount overdue as Rs. 38,618/- each to be correct. 

7. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 submitted the same submissions as mentioned in the preliminary objections so there  is no need to repeat the same. However, the opposite party No. 2 lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua the answering opposite party No. 2 with costs. 

8. To prove his case the complainant filed affidavit and  documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 filed affidavit and documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/7 and opposite party No. 2 filed documents Annexure-R-1. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file.

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant was using the credit card of the opposite party No. 1. The main grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that the complainant deposited the entire outstanding amount of the credit card issued by the opposite party No. 1 vide cheque dated 28.4.2014 of Rs. 6500/-, but even then they in the Cibil report of the complainant an amount of Rs. 38,618/- is reflected as not paid by the complainant. 

11. We have perused the evidence of both the parties. The complainant has not filed any document to prove that the cheque given by him to the opposite party No. 1 was cleared and he paid the amount of Rs. 6,500/- to the opposite party No. 1. He failed to produce on the file his account statement to prove the clearance of the cheque in question. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 filed copy of cheque Ex.OP-1/4 and copy of Return cheque advice Ex.OP-1/3. From the copy of cheque dated 28.4.2014 Ex.OP-1/4 it is proved on the file that the complainant issued the cheque in favour of credit card of opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 6,500/- but from Return cheque advice Ex.OP-1/3 it is proved on the file beyond any doubt that the cheque of the complainant was not cleared rather it was dishonored being amount/name differ on advice. In this way the amount of Rs. 6,500/- was outstanding against the complainant which become Rs. 38,618/- by adding interest and penalty charges. As the outstanding amount of the opposite party No. 1 was not cleared by the complainant so the amount of Rs. 38,618/- as outstanding showing on Cibil report is not at all any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        14th Day of September 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member