The present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') by the complainant Sunil Kumar prays for the necessary directions to the opposite party to delete his name from loan documents and CIBIL.

 2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he stood guarantor of Gurdeep Singh son of Tara Singh resident of village Chamke Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar, when Gurdeep Singh took loan of Rs.19,00,000/- from opposite party no.1 and he is guarantor of Gurdeep Singh. After some time the loan has been transferred to Sarabjit Singh son of Gurdeep Singh for Rs.21,00,000/-. He is not aware about this loan and he has also not signed the said documents. He approached to Punjab National Bank Branch Mirthal and requested for loan and to this respect Cibil Customer Information shows loan against him of Rs.21,00,000/- and the Punjab National Bank Mirthal refused to give him loan. He went to opposite party no.1 and requested him to delete the name as guarantor from the documents but of no avail. A legal notice dated 1.4.2015 was served but opposite party did not reply the same and also not delete his name from the loan file and did not feed in the computer and the loan is still standing on his name. Hence this complaint.

 3.        Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is without any merits and without any cause of action; The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party nor in any manner he falls within the Definition of Consumer as provided in the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not availed any of the services of the opposite parties nor in any manner he is the customer or consumer of the opposite parties. It has been further pleaded that Sh.Gurdeep Singh son of Tara Singh and Sh.Sarabjit Singh son of Gurdeep Singh being Co applicants had availed a loan of Rs.19,00,000/- from the opposite party vide loan agreement bearing no.PTNKT0302270001 for purchasing a commercial vehicle/tipper. The complainant Sunil Kumar has stood as guarantor for the above mentioned applicants in the above mentioned loan and now when the original loanees have defaulted in their loan the complainant in order to escape from his liability has filed a false complaint. Sh.Gurdeep Singh and Sarabjit Singh has defaulted in the payment of the loan and when the opposite parties approached the above mentioned Gurdeep Singh and Sarabjit Singh and the complainant for the repayment of the loan the complainant filed the present false complaint to escape from his liability; the complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the present claim is in respect commercial vehicle/Tipper used for commercial purposes and such the complainant is not a consumer and the matter in dispute is beyond the scope Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous and infractuous complaint without any merits and as such the complainant is not entitled to any claim. On merits, the same pleadings and averments have been repeated and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Sh.Sunil Kumar, complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Rohit Varun Singh Thakur, Senior Executive Legal of the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence  his own affidavit Ex.OP1 and closed the remaining evidence vide order dated 3.11.2015.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants while adjudicating the present complaint. We are certainly not convinced with the OP Co.’s objection/pleading that the present complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as envisaged under the C P Act. We find that the complainant had stood ‘surety’ to the vehicle-loan of Gurdeep Singh with the OP financer as such his interest and liability being co-extensive, joint and several with the principal borrower he shall deem to be ‘consumer’ under the Act. In his complaint, the complainant alleges that the outstanding in the Vehicle Loan A/c # PTNKT 03022 70001 (Ex.C16) advanced to Gurdeep Singh Borrower (with him as guarantor) upon default was transferred to another fresh Loan A/c # PTNKT0406230001 to (Ex.C12 to Ex.C15) Sarabjit Singh (S/o Gurdeep Singh) as borrower/co-borrower but to that fresh Loan A/c he had never stood guarantee/surety. The OP financer has somehow, wrongly (though willfully) shown him as ‘guarantor’ and the same gets adversely reflected in the CIBIL credit score reports Ex.C4 to Ex.C10 and thus lowering his credit rating and rendering him unfit/ineligible to raise Vehicle Loan (for his own use) from the PNB, Mirthal; to which he otherwise would have been eligible. We find that the OP financer has rebutted the complainant’s above allegation/claim by stating in its written reply that the Loan has been originally advanced in the joint names of father-son duo namely Gurdeep Singh and Sarabjit Singh with the complainant Sunil Kumar as guarantor/ surety to the loan advanced and as such his name has correctly reflected in the CIBIL credit score reports. Somehow, the OP financers could not produce any documentary evidence to support its above claim in spite of having availed ‘five’ nos. of adjournments to present its evidence and that renders its written reply as merely a bunch of ‘bald’ statements sans cogent evidence. This arbitrary and unauthorized act on the part of the OP financer committed to the detriment of the complainant amounts to ‘unfair trade practice’ coupled with ‘deficiency in service’ as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. The OP financer is thus held guilty of misconduct and liable to an adverse award under the Act.   

7.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the OP financer to immediately revoke the impugned guarantee of the surety complainant and remove/erase his name as guarantor in the CIBIL records besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.

8.          Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)       

November,30 2015                                             Member

*MK*