Date of filing : 24.11.2014

Date of hearing : 15.05.2017

       The instant appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act “ ) is at the instance of Opposite Parties to impeach the judgement/Final Order dated 14.05.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas at Alipore ( in short, Ld. District Forum )  in Consumer Complaint No.29/2014. By the impugned judgement/final order, the Ld. District Forum allowed  the complaint lodged by the  respondent Shri Samar Kumar Biswas U/s. 12 of the Act with the directions upon the OPs to issue a No Due Certificate  in respect of a card of Shri Arijit Biswas from  the CIBIL list within a month, to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and to pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

       The Respondent  herein being Complainant initiated the complaint stating that he is a Headmaster of a High School and in the year of 2001 the agent of the Citi Bank came to his flat and introduced the facilities of Credit Card and accordingly issued one Credit Card in the name of him being No.5546 1997 5641 8018 and thereafter additional Credit Card being no. 5546 1997 5641 8216 was given in the name of Arijit Biswas, son of complainant. The complainant states that in the year 2005 another Credit  Card being no. 4385  8792 6908 8005 was issued in the name of the petitioner. During operation of those Credit Cards a huge amount became due and the same was settled on payment of RS. 25,000/- on 12.01.2011 by cash. The complainant alleged that though the Credit Cards zero balance but  the name of his son Arijit Biswas has not been deleted from the Office of the Credit Information Bureau  (India) Ltd. (CIBIL ). In this regard, all the persuasions went in vain. Hence,  the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz – (a) to direct the OP to delete the name of complainant’s son Arijit Biswas from the CIBIL list ; (b) to pay sum of RS. 62,500/- which was deducted by T. CON and (c) compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

       Despite service of notices, the OPs did not appear to contest.

       After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint, with certain directions as indicated above, which prompted the Opposite Parties to prefer this appeal.

       I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondent when the record called on for hearing though the respondent has appeared  through his Advocate by filing a Vakalatnama.

       The fact  remains that the respondent Shri Samar Kumar Biswas in the prayer clause of the petition of complaint has made a prayer to direct the appellant no.1 Citi Bank to render service to the complainant by deleting  the name of complainant’s son Arijit Biswas from the Office of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited(CIBIL) in respect of Credit Card No. 5546 1997 5641 8216 issued by the Bank against Credit Card No. 5546 1997 5641 8018.Surprisingly enough, the complaint has not been lodged by Shri Arijit Biswas i.e. the son of the complainant independently. The Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate that there was no privity of contact between the appellant bank and the respondent with regard to the said Credit Card. Moreover, when there is no privity of contact between the respondent and  the Credit Information Bureau (India ) Limited,  the  respondent /complainant cannot be categorised as ‘Consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) (ii)of the Act and on this ground alone the complaint should have been dismissed.

       Needless to say, in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines, the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, the Credit Granting Companies are required to communicate the credit status to the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited. Therefore, appellant Bank has no authority to change the credit rating. It is only CIBIL who enjoys  the statutory duty  to make correct ratings. The ratings of CIBIL are not part of service rendered by the appellant bank to the respondent under the Credit Card Holders agreement.

       Therefore, the Ld. District Forum has totally misdirected itself in considering the matter from proper perspective. Since the order is not sustainable either in facts or in law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

       In view of the above,  the appeal is allowed exparte. There will be no order as to costs.

       The impugned judgement/final order is hereby set aside.

       Consequently CC No. 29/2014 stands dismissed.

              The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 – Parganas at Alipore ( now at Baruipur ) for information.