Karnataka

StateCommission

A/643/2014

Bajaj Finance Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. Penin Priya D/o. Wesley John - Opp.Party(s)

K.R. Venkataramana

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 643/2013

 

Bajaj Finance Limited Having Corporate Office at   Vimananagar, Pune 411 014   Bajaj Finance Ltd. # 328, Jayalakshmi Arcade Narayanshashstri Road Raghavendra Swamy Temple Above Airtel Customer Care 570 024   Both are Rep. by its GPA Holder/ Law Officer, Mr. Vipin Nanu, S/o. M. Nanu (By Sri. K.R. Venkataramana)  V/s	….Appellants
1.  Miss Penin Priya      D/o. Mr. Wesley John      Rep. by her GPA Holder      Mr. Wesley John      R/at # 963, 7th Main Road      Hebbal, 1st Stage, Mysore 570016      2.  Credit Information and Bureau (India) Pvt. Ltd.      Hoechst House, 6th Floor, 193 Backbay,      Reclamation, Mariman Point, Mumbai 400021      Rep. by its Authorised Representative (R1 by S. Rupesh Kumar)	..…Respondents

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

OP Nos.1 & 2 preferred this appeal against order dated 22.02.2014 passed in C.C.No. 467/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore which directed this appellant to inform CIBIL to remove the name of complainant from the blacklist and also directed this appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant had availed loan from this appellant which was subsequently repaid.  Consequent to repayment of the loan this appellant had intimated the same to CIBIL.  They do not know whether the name of the complainant was removed from the blacklist or not.  There afterwards, the complainant noticed that her name was not removed from the defaulter’s list in the CIBIL.  Hence, alleged deficiency in service and filed complaint before District Commission.  After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to intimate CIBIL to remove name of the complainant from the blacklist and also directed to pay the above said amount.  Aggrieved by the said order appellants are before this Commission. 
3. Heard.
4. On going through the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal, documents produced before the District Commission there is no dispute that complainant availed loan from appellant finance which was repaid.  Subsequently, this appellant had issued a No Due Certificate to the complainant.  At the same time they have issued intimation to the CIBIL with respect to the clearance of the loan.  Even after issuance of the said letter CIBIL had not removed name of the complainant from the defaulter’s list.  Aggrieved by the said act the complainant approached District Commission alleging deficiency in service.  The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint.  We noticed that order passed by the District Commission lacks legality because the CIBIL is an independent platform which discloses the liabilities of the public at large if there is any outstanding loan.  The said CIBIL is not under the control of the appellant’s authority.  We noticed as soon as the loan was cleared and No Due Certificate was issued to both complainant and CIBIL, we found the transaction ends there itself.  When the CIBIL has not removed the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters’ that cannot be alleged as deficiency in service on the part of appellant and the compensation cannot be fixed.  We noticed that the complainant has not made any attempts to make correspondence with CIBIL for clarification.  In the absence of which no deficiency in service can be attributed on part of the appellant.  The complainant had not at all produced any materials to show that how he deprived of facilities subsequent to the non-removal of the name in the CIBIL.  In the absence of which we do not find there is any reason to award such huge compensation though there is no deficiency in service.  District Commission made an error in allowing the complaint without considering the letter issued by this appellant in respect of clearance of loan.  Hence, order requires to be set aside.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside.  Consequently, complaint is dismissed.
5. The amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*