Orissa

Cuttak

CC/72/2019

Debaranjan Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Tata Motor Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N K Dash & associates

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.72/2019

 

    Debaranjan Mohanty,

    S/O:Nimain Charan Mohanty,

    At:Jurudi,PO/PS:Jajanga,

    Dist:Keonjhar,

    At present Plot No.1/F,416,

    P.S:Markat Nagar,C.D.A,Sector-10,

    Dist:Cuttack.                                          ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. Managing Director,Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,2nd floor,A wing,1 Think Techno Campus Building

(Near Pokhran Road No.2 and Yantra Park)

Subhas Nagar,Thane West,Thane-400601.

 

2. Branch Manager,Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,

                 TATA Motors Finance Ltd.,Bhubaneswar Branch,

                 At:Keshari Complex,1^st Floor,98-Kharvel Nagar,

                 Bhubaneswar-3,Dist:Khurda.

 

3. Branch Manager,Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,

KeonjharBranch,Parida Complex,

Plot No.556,Pabitradiha,

                  Kamargoda,Keonjhar-758001

 

4. Trans Union CIBIL Limited(formerly

Credit Information Bureau(India) Ltd.,),

One IndiabullsCentre,Tower 2A,19^th Floor,

Senapati Bapat Marg,Elphinstone Road,Mumbai-400013.

 

5. Reserve Bank of India,

Regional Office,Bhubaneswar,

Pt. Jawaharlal NeheruMarg,Unit-III,

Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001.

 

6. Mr. Ranvijay Singh,

C/O:ShivlakhanSingh,DD College Road,

Keonjhargarh,Near PG Hostel,Keonjhar,

                  Dist-Keonjhar.                                                                   ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    29.06.2019

Date of Order:  14.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. N.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Psno.1,2 & 3:       Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.4 & 5:                 None.

 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.             

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he is a businessman dealing with business of garments and selling in the name of “Anshika” at Sector-9,C.D.A of Cuttack.  He had applied for cash credit loan at several banking and financial institutions but his applications were denied as because his name was in the CIBIL.  On enquiry he could know that the O.P no.6 Ranvijay Singh had obtained a loan of Rs.14,06,989/- from O.Ps no.1 & 3 and being a defaulterthe said person has been listed in the CIBIL.  The complainant is shown to be the guarantor of the said person who is O.P no.6 hereand when O.P no.6 became a defaulter, the name of the present complainant is also notified in the CIBIL list being a guarantor.  Thus, it is the contention of the complainant that he is unknown to the said O.P no.6 who is completely a stranger to him and at no point of time he stood as a guarantor for the said person.  It is the contention of the complainant that the documents executed in the name of the present complainant had been forged to make him the guarantor of the said O.P no.6 in order to enable O.P no.6 avail the said loan.  Thus, the complainant by filing this case seeks direction from this Commission to the O.P no.4 in order to delete his name from the CIBIL holding that the complainant is not the guarantor against the loan availed by O.P no.6, Ranvijay Singh. 

To further his case, the complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Out of all the O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not contested O.Ps no.4 & 5 have been set exparte vide order dt.5.7.2022 on which date also as per the petition of the complainant O.P no.6 has been deleted.  However, O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version.  As per the written version of O.Ps no.1,2 & 3, the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  According to them, it is the complainant of this case who stood as a guarantor enabling a borrower Ranvijay Singh to avail a loan and when the said borrower who is O.P no.6 in this case, became a defaulter against the loan availed by him, his name alongwith name of the guarantor was reflected in the list of CIBIL.  Thus, accordingly, name of the complainant of this case being the guarantor of O.P no.6 Ranvijay Singh were shown in the list of CIBIL.  It is because, the borrower and the guarantor are jointly and severally liable for repaying the loan availed by the borrower Ranvijay Singh.  O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 through their written version have straight away denied to have manipulated on forged of any document showing the present complainant as guarantor and thereby enabling O.P no.6 to avail the loan.  Thus according to O.Ps no.1,2 & 3,  being the guarantor to the loan availed by O.P no.6 Ranvijay Singh and thereafter suppressing the material fact the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands for which the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of O.Ps no.1,2 & 3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him ?

Issue No.i.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.(i) being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition it is noticed that he has urged that at no point of time he was the guarantor for the loan as availed by the said Ran Vijay Singh, C/O: Shivlakhan Singh,DD College Road, Keonjhargarh who was initially made O.P no.6 in this case.  According to the complainant, in order to enable the said borrower, avail the loan to the tune of Rs.14,06,989/- his name was shown as the guarantor of the said borrower by forging his documents.  This grave allegation as brought by the complainant inspires criminal liability against the erring persons.  This Commission lacks jurisdiction to probe into the matter regarding forging of documents as alleged by the complainant.  Moreso, the complainant in his prayer has sought for direction to the O.Ps particularly to O.P no.4, for deleting his name from the CIBIL as because he was never a guarantor for the said borrower Ranvijay Singh.  This Commission also lacks jurisdiction to give any such direction as intended by the complainant.  Thus, this Commission thinks to be lacking jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.   Accordingly, this issue cannot be answered in favour of the complainant here in this case.

Issues no.ii& iii.

When this Commission is unable to decide that if actually the complainant was a guarantor or his documents were forged, this Commission cannot find deficiency in service of the O.Ps and accordingly this Commission is unable to grant any relief to the complainant of this case.  These two issues are answered accordingly.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Psno.1,2 & 3 and exparte against O.Ps no.4 & 5 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 14^th day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.             

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                            President

 

 

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                Member