This case has arisen out of application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a motor cycle vide Registration No:W.B60M/6857 with financial support from L&T Finance Service(herein after referred to as O.P/Company) & he had repaid the loan & O.P/Company issued NOC on 05.03.2019. The complainant submits application with NOC to Transport Authority of Raiganj to abolish the name of Company from certificate of registration & issue the same in his name afresh. In the middle part of 2020 when he went to get financial assistance from any bank/financial institution, they stated his CIBIL Score is not cleared in O.P/Company due to two wheeler loan. He requested O.Ps to rectify the CIBIL report but O.Ps demanded a huge amount to rectify the same which is illegal. He sent a letter dated 19.10.2019 to O.Ps for rectification of CIBIL Score but they did not comply, which come within the purview of unfair trade practice, for that he is unable to get loan for cultivation of his ancestral agricultural land & face loss of Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, his Advocate sent a notice dated 14.12.2020 requesting O.Ps to rectify CIBIL report of complainant but in spite of receipt no step was taken. He filed this complaint for directing the O.Ps to rectify the CIBIL report of complainant, compensation of Rs.50,000/- due to unfair trade practice of O.Ps, another sum of Rs.50,000/- for compensation due to his mental pain & agony and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
O.Ps contested the case by filing W.V stating that the complaint does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute and there was neither any unfair trade practice nor deficiency in service of the O.Ps. The complainant availed the services of the O.Ps for purchasing Hero Honda Glamour bike bearing Registration No:W.B60M/6857 by executing agreement dated 10.12.2015 having arbitration clause. Due to irregular payment a hefty amount became outstanding. He approached the Branch office of O.Ps & expressed his financial inability to pay the outstanding amount & the O.Ps after due consideration offered a settlement proposal to the complainant to close his account & the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- and the remaining outstanding principal amount of Rs.10,664/- along with overdue interest and cheque bouncing charges were waived off from the books of account of O.Ps. The complainant received NOC copy from the Raiganj Office of the O.Ps. However, the details of each and every financial credit facility is maintained by CIBIL & the waive off amount will still reflect in the CIBIL report. The O.Ps have no further role in the correction or maintenance of good CIBIL Score by the complainant. O.Ps pray for dismissal of the case.
Points for consideration
- Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps?
ii Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed
for?
Decision with Reasons
It is admitted that the complainant purchased a Hero Honda Glamour two wheeler vehicle bearing Registration No: W.B60M/6857 with loan of Rs.54,000/- from L&T Finance Ltd (erstwhile known as Family Credit Ltd)/the O.P Finance Company & he has entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the Company bearing Agreement No:2651363 dated 10.12.2015, repayable by 24 EMIs starting from 05.02.2016 to 05.01.2018.
The defence case & evidence of O.P.W.1/Bidit Guha the Divisional Manager of the Finance Company is that the complainant approached the O.Ps regarding his inability to pay the outstanding amount due to his financial indiscipline as he has not cleared any EMI on time due to which the penalty and overdue charges accrued & he paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- so as to settle his loan account & the remaining outstanding principal amount of Rs.10,664/- along with overdue interest & cheque bouncing charges were waived off from the books of account of the O.Ps & the Finance Company issued NOC with Form No:35, dated 05.03.2019. The complainant admits receipt of NOC but he is unable to discard said case & evidence of the O.Ps.
According to O.Ps the details of each & every financial credit facility is maintained by CIBIL & the waive off amount waived from the books of account of O.Ps will still reflect in the CIBIL report as evidence of financial discipline history of the complainant as the Company booked loss in their books of account with respect to the said loan account number. The report published by CIBIL is published/reported as per their own terms & conditions based on the data provided by the Financial Institutions/Banks and O.P Company has not reported any illegal entry regarding the financial history of the complainant.
The O.Ps replied stating that after payment of settlement amount there is no dues in respect of the loan account of complainant & the company issued NOC along with Form 35. CIBIL report is not a part of the Company so there is no response in respect of CIBIL enquiry & there is no knowledge about CIBIL Authority who put endorsement in CIBIL report. CIBIL Controlling Authority is a separate entity & separate concern.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits a ruling of SCDRC (From Kerala) (DB) in Re: S. Reghukumar, Advocate Vs Canara Bank, Circle Office, Statue reported in 2017 LawSuit (CO) 1425. In that case the Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL), Bombay was the 4th O.P. The CIBIL report dated 22.06.2020 reflected complainant’s score 670, scoring factors 1:presence of delinquency as of recent update, 2: presence of severe delinquency as on recent update, status-written off/settled status-settled, written off (Total):11488, written off (Principal):10664, settlement:11488. All information contained in the Credit Information Report (CIR) is the current & up to date. In the said citations the loan was closed but in CIBIL report said loan has not been closed showing the complainant as a defaulter & the Commission find action of the Bank & its authority as deficiency of service & as CIBIL Authority has published the list of the defaulters on the basis of information given by the Bank.
Under above facts & discussion, we are of the opinion that CIBIL Authority is required to be made a party to the case and in its absence no effective & executable order/decree could be granted/passed in favour of the complainant & at this stage the information supplied by the O.Ps cannot be said to be deficiency of service. If O.P/Finance Company did not supply required information to CIBIL Authority, the complainant may first opt for arbitration before filing this complaint. Consequently the complaint is held a premature one.
In the result the case dismissed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-03/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without cost.
However, O.Ps are directed to give/supply information as to claim settlement/payment/issuance of NOC to the CIBIL Authority within one month from the date of order, so that the CIBIL Authority may publish correct report in respect of loan account of the complainant.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
