Haryana

Ambala

CC/244/2019

Kapil Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Fullerton India Credit Co ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P.K Goel

13 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 244 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   07.08.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :   13.09.2021.

 

Kapil Ram son of Sh. Kura Ram, aged 59 years, r/o H-15, P&T Colony, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

Versus

1.       M/s Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., having its Branch Office at Model Town, Ambala City, through its Branch Manager.

2.       M/s Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., having its Regd., Office at 3^rd Floor, No.165, Megh Towers, PH Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600095 through its Managing Director.

3.       M/s Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., having its Corporate Office at Supreme Business Park, Floors 5&6 B Wing, Supreme IT Park, Supreme City, Powal, Mumbai 400076, through its Corporate Manager/Director/Auth. Official.

           ..…..Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                                                

Present:       Shri P.K.Goel, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Anil Kumar Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.      

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1.      To issue NOC and forward letter to CIBIL regarding closure of the loan account and to send necessary information in this regard to concerned authorities.
2.      To pay Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service.
3.      To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.                The brief facts of the case are that complainant had availed personal loan facility from OP no.1 provide loan account no. 053025400002160 in his name and paid some installments as per norms. OPs took some blank security cheques from the complainant. He has deposited the installment amount with OPs against contract of loan for which OPs charged interest. The complainant had requested OPs many times to issue him a statement of account but they did not supply the same. Due to financial crises complainant could not pay the loan installments.  Complainant requested the OPs for settlement of the loan and they agreed for the same. On 20.05.2019, complainant deposited Rs.35,000/- with the Ops as per settlement. Ops issued letters dated 11.06.2019 and 17.06.2019, for closure of loan and confirming the settlement of loan with him. Complainant requested the OPs to send the information of closure of his loan account to the Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL) and to correct the record, but despite receiving the settlement loan amount and closure of loan account but the OPs did not do the needful.  Due to this, the complainant is unable to apply for any loan.  When complainant could not get the NOC and statement of account, then he served a legal notice dated 23.09.2011 upon OPs, but to no effect. By not doing the needful, the Ops committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

     3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that the vide agreement No. 053025400002160, OPs disbursed the loan amount of Rs.81000/- to the complainant, which was repayable in 36 installments of Rs.4200/- each payable  in the period of 03.06.2013 to 03.12.2016. After taking loan, complainant paid few installments and was in huge default as if the loan was taken never to pay. However on the persistent request made by the complainant, Ops agreed for settlement of the loan.  The total amount recoverable was Rs.1,34,519/-, but the OPs were compelled to settle the loan for Rs.35,000/-. As per Section 17 and Section 19 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 read with Rule 19 and 20 of the Credit Information Companies Rule 2006, every credit institution is duty bound to provide the accurate information to Credit Information Company (CIBIL). In case the Credit institution does not provide the accurate information to the CIBIL, there is provision for penalty.  In the present case, the OPs had given accurate information to the credit information company by showing the loan as written off/settled. As per Sector 18 of Credit Companies (Regulation) Act 2005, if any dispute arises amongst the Credit Information Companies, credit institutions, borrowers and clients on matters relating to business of Credit information and for which no remedy has been provided under the Act, such dispute shall be settled by Conciliation and Arbitration as provided under the Act, 1996. Rest of the averments made by the complainant were denied by OPs and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.  

     4.                The complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs have failed to produce evidence despite various opportunities. Under these circumstances, evidence of OPs closed by this Commission vide order dated 26.02.2021. 

5.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.

6.           From acknowledgment slip/receipt, Annexure C-1, it is evident that on 20.05.2019, complainant paid Rs.35,000/- to OPs,  as per settlement arrived between the parties. In letter dated 11.06.2019 Annexure C-2, it has been specifically admitted by OPs that they had received the settlement amount towards the aforesaid loan account and same is closed in records. The grievance of the complainant is that after receiving the settled amount of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant, OPs neither provided NOC nor sent information to the CIBIL regarding his clear status in the record of the bank. No doubt, the stand of the OPs is that they have provided the information to the CIBIL but no such document has been placed on record, to prove the said fact. No reason whatsoever has been given by the OPs as to why they have not given the NOC to the complainant. Admittedly, as per the settlement complainant paid Rs.35,000/- to the OPs, as such, it is the bounded duty of the OPs to provide the NOC and to give information regarding closing of the loan account of the complainant to the Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL).

7.        In the case of  Ms. Anjoo Sharma Vs. HDFC Bank decided on 17.12.2009, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad, has held that as per the RBI guidelines, credit information relating to credit, the Bank provides credit information relating to its credit holders to Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL) on a monthly basis. The information provided reflects the status as at the previous month end and includes information regarding whether the credit card account is regular or delinquent. If name of the complainant registered in black list of CIBIL then customer/complainant would be dubbed as defaulter and it was not a simple issue that could be ignored. The law laid down in this case is fully applicable in the case in hand.

8.           In the light of the above discussion, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to issue NOC to the complainant and give the correct information to CIBIL, regarding closure of the loan account of the complainant and also send necessary information in this regard to the concerned authorities. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. The OPs are further directed to comply with the order within the period of 45 days. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

     Announced on: 13.09.2021.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President

 

 

Present:       Shri P.K.Goel, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Anil Kumar Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on:13.09.2021.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President