Haryana

Karnal

CC/51/2018

Narender Singh Ranga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Parhlad Chauhan

24 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.51 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 05.03.2018

                                                         Date of decision:24.05.2019

 

Narender Singh Ranga son of Shri Ramsaran, age 47 years, resident of village Gohinda, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.                                                                                                                                       

…….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.Punjab National Bank, Model town, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

2. State Bank of India, Mall Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

3. Narender Singh son of Shri Bharat Singh resident of village Tikri, District Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

         

Before      Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.        

                  Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member

 

 Present:  Shri Parhlad Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Bhivishay Sahni Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Shri S.K.Malhotra Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                    Shri Shadi Ram Chauhan Adv. for opposite party no.3.

                                     

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is an account holder of OP no.2 with his account no.30891892332 with Branch Mall Road, Karnal. OP no.3 is account holder of OP no.1 with his account no.0286008800000404 with branch Model Town, Karnal. Complainant has no account in Punjab National Bank and no concern with Punjab National Bank i.e. OP no.1. The complainant is only dealing with OP no.2 i.e. State Bank of India. The complainant approached the OP no.2 for loan but he surprised to hear that his CIBIL was not good according to Punjab National Bank but complainant never deal with the Punjab National Bank and the complainant never default loan with any other bank also. OP no.3 is account holder of OP no.1. His name also Narender Singh son of Bharat Singh r/o village Tikri but complainant has no concern with OP no.3. When the complainant approached the OP no.2 for advancing loan, the concern bank postponed the matter and told to the complainant to clear his CIBIL with OP no.1. The complainant told to OPs no.1 and 2 that he has no account with OP no.1 then how his CIBIL was not good. In the last month, after taking all the documents from complainant, the OP no.2 flatly refused to give loan to the complainant because bad CIBIL of OP no.3 i.e. Narender Singh son of Shri Bharat Singh resident of village Tikri. Due to this act and conduct of OPs complainant suffered a lot to not clear the loan taken by OP no.3. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant approached the OP no.1 with his grievance and after going through the entire facts and detail of account of Shri Narinder Singh son of Bharat Singh who is account holder of OP, the complainant was make understand that mistaken, if any, has been taken place on the part of CIBIL department and not on the end of the OP and he was also advised to approach the CIBIL department in a proper procedure and the complainant was also assured that the complainant, the OP no.1 is ready to cooperative him at any moment in this regard and as such that time complainant was satisfied with the OP no.1 but now the complainant has filed the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the OP no.3 is account holder of OP no.1 for a KCC limit. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 in his reply stated that the loan application by any customer is to be processed by the OP no.2  as per the banking rules and taking into consideration the status found in the CIBIL. If any allegedly wrong information finds mention in CIBIL due to the OP no.1, OP no. 2 cannot be held responsible for the same and such like dispute has to be settled by the OP no.1 with regard to OP no.3. It is further stated that neither the OP no.2 bank nor any other bank can be compelled to grant loan to any person against the guidelines and the banking norms laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 filed its separate written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action. On merits, OP no.3 denied all the facts mentioned in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 5.11.2018.

6.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravi Shankar Singh, Manager Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 20.05.2019. OPs no. 2 and 3 led no evidence.

7.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8.             The case of the complainant is that the complainant is an account holder of SBI (OP no.2) in its branch of Mall Road, Karnal. Complainant has no account in the PNB (OP no.1) and is only dealing with only SBI. The complainant approached the OP no.2 for a loan but he got surprised to hear that his CIBIL was not good according to the OP no.1 but complainant never dealt with OP no.1 and never defaulted loan with any other bank also.

9.             Further, OP no.3 is account holder of the OP no.1 and his name is also Narender Singh but complainant has no concern with him. The OP no.2 after taking all the documents from the complainant refused to give the loan to the complainant because of bad CIBIL of the OP no.3. OP no.1 has shown their unfair trade practice by not clearing the CIBIL of the complainant.

10.            The case of the OP no.1 is that the complainant has approached the OP with his grievances and after going through the entire facts and details of the account of Narender Singh who is account holder of the OP, the complainant was make understand mistake, if any, has been taken place on the part of the CIBIL department and not on the end of the OP. OP is ready to cooperate with him at any moment.

11.            The case of the OP no.2 is that the dispute, if any, is between he OPs no.1 and 3 regarding which the complainant has a grudge, the loan application of the complainant is to be proceeded against the OP as per banking rules and taking into consideration the status found in the CIBIL. If any alleged wrong information finds mention in CIBIL due to the OP no.1, OP no.2 cannot be held responsible for the same.

12.            The case of the OP no.3 is that, OP no.3 has nothing to do with the complainant. There is no concern of OP no.3 with the complainant. The OP no.3 had taken a loan from OP no.1 and is paying regular installments. OP no.3 is not defaulter at any stage.

13.            The complainant had applied for loan with OP no.2 i.e. SBI. The loan of the complainant was not sanctioned due to bad CIBIL on the wrong information given by OP no.1 to the CIBIL department. As per letter (Ex.C2) issued by OP no.1 in favour of the complainant is clearly mentioned that complainant has not taken any agriculture loan from PNB, whereas during CIBIL inquiry, an agriculture loan is reflected with balance of Rs.19,95,189/-, which is in the name of Narender Singh son of Bharat Singh resident of village Tikri, Karnal.

14.            Further, it is an admitted fact that the complainant approached the OP no.1 regarding his grievance but OP no.1 did not resolve his grievances and due to that the complainant could not succeed in getting loan from OP no.2. The CIBIL of the complainant become bad due to fault of the OP no.1, then it is the duty of the OP no.1 to get rectify the same from the CIBIL department. Thus, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP no.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

15.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to get rectify the CIBIL from the concerned department. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. It is made clear that OP no.1 is at liberty to recover the said amount from its defaulting officials. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:24.05.2019               

                                                       

                                                                   President,

                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Forum, Karnal.      

 

                        (Vineet Kaushik)         

                         Member