Haryana

Karnal

CC/491/2024

Lehari Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poonawalla Fincorp - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhvir Singh

14 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint.No.491 of 2024

                                                          Date of instt. 09.10.2024

                                                          Date of Decision: 14.10.2024

 

Lehari Singh age about 59 years son ofShri Matu Ram, resident of H.No.979, Kheda Walla Mohalla, Sandhir, Sandhir (70), Karnal 132117.

         ...…Complainant

                                        Versus

Poonawalla Fincorp 2^nd Floor, R Square, Agarsen Chowk, Rajeev Colony, Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Sonipat, Haryana 131001, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                .....Opposite party.                           

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before      Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Mrs.Neeru Agarwal…….Member

                Mrs.Sarvjeet Kaur..……… Member.

                       

Present:  Shri Sukhvir Singh & Ms.Kavita Dutt, counsel for the complainant.

                         

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

2.             Brief facts of the complaint are that son of complainant had obtained a personal loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the OP on 17.08.2023. The OP had obtained signature of complainant on the loan document as guarantor. Due to financial loss, son of complainant was not able to pay the loan installments. The son of complainant obtained the copy of loan document from the OP then he came to know tht OP was charging higher rate of interest. Complainant and his son decided to close the said loan by taking loan from other finance company. Complainant made efforts to take finance assistance from other finance company but complainant came to know that OP has decrease the CIBIL score of complainant intentionally and illegally. Complainant approached the OP to get the CIBIL score rectified but the OP did not hear the request of the complainant and flatly refused to do so. Hence, the present complaint.

3.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard. Record perused.

4.             Admittedly, the son of the complainant had availed loan facility from the OP and complainant is the guarantor of the said loan. It is also admitted fact that the son of the complainant did not pay the installments of the loan amount regularly. Neither complainant nor his son has paid the loan amount and became defaulter. Complainant wants to avail fresh loan from other finance company or bank without clearing the loan taken from the OP. Without making the payment of the loan amount, the OP is not bound to get rectified the CIBIL score of the complainant from the concerned authority.  There is no fault on the part of OP.

5.             In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Dated:  14.10.2024.          

                   President, 

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Neeru Agarwal)        (Sarvjeet Kaur) 

    Member                     Member