DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 41 of 2018

 

Sri Papan Das,

S/O- Sri Nirmal Chandra Das,

Address-Bardowali, Madhyapara,

P.S.+ P.O.-A.D. Nagar, Pin-799003,

Dist.-West Tripura, .…..…........................................Complainant.

 

                -VERSUS-

 

1). L & T Finance Company,

Address- Bardowali, Kalyan Samity,

Near Maharashtra Bank, 2nd floor,

P.S.+ P.O.-A.D. Nagar, Pin-799003,

Dist.-West Tripura, 

 

2).  Trans Union CIBIL Limited,

CIN:U72300MH2000PLC128359,

Registered Corporate Office,

TRANS UNION CIBIL LIMITED(FORMERLY: CREDIT 

INFORMATION BUREAU(INDIA) LIMITED),

ONE INDIA BULLS CENTRE, TOWER 2A, 19TH FLOOR,

SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTONE ROAD,

MUMBAI-400013 …............................................Opposite parties. 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : In person. 

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Mridul Kanti Arya,

  Advocate.   

For the O.P. No.2 : Sri Arijit Bhaumik,  

  Sri Ankan Tilak Paul,

   Advocates. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 29/07/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Papan Das, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.P. No.1.  

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant intending to buy a two wheeler on down payment of 50% price of it had approached  for financial assistance before the Indusind Bank, the TVS Finance & the L&T Finance Company. All of them appraised him that credit information report(CIR) in request of him maintained by the CIBIL Ltd. shows that he is  a defaulter and that an amount Rs.16,337/- remains over due on 31/08/2016 against one two wheeler loan obtained by him. He has asserted in his complaint that he did not avail any such loan from any financial institution and as such in order to get the matter enquired into by the police he made a G.D. Entry with the A.D. Nagar Police Station on 17/05/2018. He also met the Dy. Manager, RBI on the same day with a complaint but his complaint was not received. The Dy. Manager, RBI however advised him to take help from CIBIL Authority for solving his problem. He accordingly contracted the CIBIL Office over telephone and that on telephonic conversation he came to learn that a loan was sanctioned from L & T Finance Company, Agartala vide Account Number-2968378 wherein his PAN Number BUAPD0130K has been reflected against the said loan account. The Complainant has further stated in his complaint that for getting appropriate legal remedy he had approached the O/C, A.D. Nagar P.S., the SDPO, A.D. Nagar and also the S.P., West Tripura. But  he did not get any satisfactory response them. 

Being aggrieved and that in order to get redressal he has filed the present complaint against the O.P. L & T Finance Company, Bardowali, Agartala for compensation and also for getting the Credit Information Report (CIR) being maintained by Trans Union CIBIL, Limited(CIBIL) rectified against him. 

Hence this case. 

2.  The O.P. L & T Finance Company has contested the claim raised by the Complainant by filing written statement refuting the allegations of the Complainant. The O.P. has stated in his written objection that the Complainant did never come to the office of the O.P. for taking financial assistance and as such the complaint filed against the O.P. is not maintainable. According to the O.P. the complainant has approached the Forum with uncleaned hands and also has suppressed material facts. The O.P. has however admitted that a loan agreement was entered into between the O.P. and one Sri Papan Das S/O, Sri Sunil Das of South Ramnagar, Agartala for purchase of one two wheeler and that as per the loan account Rs.18,136/- has been shown over due against the said loanee. The O.P. further asserted that the Complainant brought a baseless complaint in order to hamper the reputation of the O.P. The O.P. has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-. 

During the pendency of the case, the Complainant field an application before the Forum for impleading the Trans Union CIBIL, Limited(CIBIL), Mumbai for proper adjudication of the complaint.

After hearing the complainant and the O.P.s Counsel we on 07/01/2019 had allowed the prayer of the complainant (the O.P.s Counsel did not oppose the application of the complainant for adding the Trans Union CIBIL, Limited(CIBIL) as O.P).  Consequently the Trans Union CIBIL, Limited(CIBIL) has been added in the case as O.P. No.2.

In due course time notice was duly issued from the Forum to the CIBIL ltd., the O.P. No.2. 

The O.P. No.2 appeared and contested the case by filing W.O. through their engaged Counsel. 

 

 

The O.P. No.2 in his written objection stated that the complaint filed by the Complainant against him is not maintainable on the grounds that the Forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue raised by the complainant against the O.P. No.2. According to the O.P. No.2 it acts as a Credit Information Company maintaining a data base of Credit Information relating to both individuals and entities of all types whether incorporated or not, for use of Banks, financial institutions etc. and deal with the distribution of credit information submitted to it by Banks / Financial Institutions under The Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 and The Credit Information Companies Regulations, 2006 made under CICRA. The O.P. No.2 also stated in his written objection that in case any dispute arises between the O.P. No.2 and the Credit Information Companies, Credit Institutions, Borrowers and Clint’s on matters relating to credit information such dispute shall be settled by an Arbitrator to be a appointed by the Reserve Bank of India under the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996. 

The O.P. No.2 further stated in his written objection that any rectification in the data base of Credit Information or change in the Credit Information can only be made in accordance with the provisions of section 21(3) of CICRA which provides that a Credit Information Company like the O.P. No.2 can make correction, deletion or addition has been certified as correct by the concerned Credit Institution. 

The O.P. No.2 also stated in his W.O. that the O.P. No.2 is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and veracity of any of the information reported / submitted by the Member Credit Institution. Such responsibility lies with the reporting Institutions as per CICRA and Rules and Regulations made there under. 

According to the O.P. No.2 submission of Credit Information is an automated process through which the data reported by the Member Credit Institutions is up-dated on the systems of the O.P. No.2. 

The O.P. No.2 further stated in his W.O. that on receipt of the complaint raised by the Complainant of this case upon the allegations that the two wheeler loan account number -2968378 (“the Disputed Account”) that was being reported by the O.P. No.1 did not belong to him, the O.P. No.2 accordingly has checked it's data base to find out the reason why this account was showing in the complainant's CIR. The O.P. No.2 has asserted that after proving into the matter it was found that the reason for the said disputed account to merge with the Complainant's CIR was because the O.P. No.1 had reported the Complainant's PAN Card No.BUAPD010K, Phone No. 9774319418 along with the said disputed account which matched with the complainant's details in the data base of the O.P. No.2. 

The O.P. No.2 further asserted in his W.O. that since the Complainant was insisting that he had never approached the O.P. No.1 for a loan, then the O.P. No.2 vide an Email dated 15/03/2019 raised a dispute with the O.P. No.1 regarding reporting of personal information details by the O.P. No.1 against the Disputed Account. The O.P. No.2 has annexed with his W.O. a copy of the said Email as Annexure -A. 

According to the O.P. No.2, the O.P. No.1 in response to the Email sent by him dated 15/03/2019, sent a reply through an Email vide dated 22/03/2019 providing  fresh personal details viz the mobile No.8575857797 and the address   248, WARD-10, SOUTH  RAMNAGAR, P.O.-AGARTALA, DIST.-WEST TRIPURA, YOUBAK SANGHA CLUB, TRIPURA-799001.   

According to the O.P. No.2 it has become crystal clear that the details submitted by the O.P. No.1 vide their Email dated 22/03/2019 did not match with the details of the complainant that were already available with him. By the said Email the O.P. No.1 did not give PAN Card details. The O.P. No.2 has annexed with his W.O. the copy of the reply of the O.P. No.1 sent through Email as  Annexure -B.   

The O.P. No.2 further asserted that based on the Email sent by the O.P. No.1 he was able to ascertain that the said Disputed Account does not belong to the complainant and that the O.P. No.2 thereafter removed the said Disputed Account from the complainant's CIR. 

The O.P. No.2 has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint against him with costs. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

In support of the Complaint, the Complainant has Examined himself as PW-1 and produced 06 documents  The documents are marked  Exhibit-I series. 

On behalf of the O.P. No.1  Sri Priyabrata Nath, Branch Manager, L&T Finance Agartala Branch has been examined as witness. He has not   produced any document in support of his case. 

On behalf of the O.P. No.2 one Sri Pankaj Patil, Asstt. Vice President-Client Servicing and Authorized signatory of O.P. Transit Union CIBIL Limited has submitted Affidavit-in-Chief. But the said witness has not turned up for cross examination. 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

4.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

   (I). Whether  there was  any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

    (ii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

 

 

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  We have heard arguments from the Advocates of the Complainant and that of the O.P. Nos.1 & 2. 

    We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and the materials on record.  

    We find that the Complainant in his complaint has asserted that when he was intending to avail loan for purchasing a two wheeler he has been apprised by different Financial Institutions namely the Indusind Bank, the TVS Finance & the L&T Finance Company that his Credit Information Report(CIR)  shows that he is  a defaulter and that an amount Rs.16,337/- remains over due on 31/08/2016 against one two wheeler loan obtained by him. It was a great jolt to the Complainant as he did never avail such loan from any Financial Institution. He immediately contacted the Dy. Manager, RBI, Agartala and that as per advise of the Dy. Manager he took up the issue with Trans Union CIBIL, Limited(CIBIL), Mumbai(the O.P. No.2). On his telephonic conversation with CIBIL Official he came to learn that a loan was sanctioned from L & T Finance Company, Agartala vide Account Number-2968378 wherein his PAN Number BUAPD0130K has been reflected against the said loan account and it was shown outstanding resulting which the CIR of the Complainant becomes adverse. 

  We further find that the O.P. L & T Finance which was the reporting institution to the CIBIL Limited in his W.O. as well as the Statement on Affidavit of their witness has denied the contentions of the complainant as to the adverse CIR of the complainant, taking their plea that the Complainant had never approached the O.P. No.1 for Financial Assistance. But from the W.O. and the Statement on Affidavit of witness filed by the O.P. No.2 it has become crystal clear that the two wheeler Loan Account No.2968378(Disputed Account) which was reported by the O.P. No.1 L & T Finance to the O.P. No.2 CIBIL Limited had contained the Complainant's PAN No.BUAPD010K and his mobile No.977431948 resulting which CIR of the Complainant becomes adverse. We further noticed that this part of the assertion made by the O.P. No.2 in their W.O. as well as the Statement on Affidavit of their witness has not been controverted by the O.P. No.1.

  It is further evident from the copy of the E-mail dated 22/03/2019 of the O.P. No.1 (under Annexure-B) which is the reply to the query made by the O.P. No.2 through their E-mail dated 15/03/2019 (under Annexure- A) that the details submitted by the O.P. No.1 vide their E-mail dated 22/03/2019 did not match with the details of the Complainant that were already available with the O.P. No.2. We further notice that by the said E-mail dated 22/03/2019 the O.P. No.1 did not give PAN Card details of the Loanee.

  We further find that the O.P. No.2 in his W.O. has emphatically asserted that based on the E-mail sent by the O.P. No.1 it was ascertained that the Disputed Account No.2968378 does not belong to the Complainant. The O.P. No.2 accordingly removed the Disputed Account from the Complainant's CIR.

  In view of the discussion made above having considered the W.O. and the Statement on Affidavit of the witness of the O.P. No.2 and also from the E-mail dated 15/03/2019 of the O.P. No.2 and the reply their to send by E-mail dated 22/03/2019 of the O.P. No.1, we find and hold that it was due to the negligence of the O.P. No.1 the CIR of the Complainant becomes adverse. The O.P. No.1 according to us ought to have taken appropriate steps at the earlier stage of the proceedings of this case for getting the CIR of the Complainant rectified by the CIBIL Limited. The O.P. No.1 did not do so. 

      We find that the O.P. No.1 being a service provider has failed to discharge it's service to the Complainant.

 

6.    In the result, the Complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant is allowed partly on contest. We find and hold that the O.P. is guilty committing deficiency of service towards the Complainant. 

 

 

    It is hereby directed that the O.P. No.1 shall pay Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The O.P. No.1 is to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.5,000/-) in total to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made. As the CIR of the Complainant has already been rectified by the O.P. No.2, we are not inclined to give any direction in this respect.  

    Before parting with the judgment we would like to record our deep appreciation regarding the initiative which was taken by the O.P. No.2 in getting the rectified CIR of the Complainant.

 

    

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.