The two appeals bearing number RBR/A/54/2018 and RBR/A/57/2018 are arising out against the final order of Ld. DCDRF Siliguri dated 9/8/2016 in consumer case number 3/S/2014. The Appeal number RBR/A/54/2018 has registered by Credit information Bureau (India Limited) who happens to be the opposite party number 3 of the instant consumer complaint case and RBR/A/57/2018 was registered by the branch manager Standard Chartered Bank Sevoke road Siliguri. The consumer dispute relates to the credit cards which was obtained by the complainant Motilal Das who happened to be the sole respondents of both the appeal cases. His case in nutshell is that he had obtained two credit cards from Standard Chartered Bank having limits of rupees 44000. The standard charted bank was required to provide to the complainant copy of statement showing details of the transaction in respect of the said credit cards on monthly basis and the complainant was liable to make payments of due amounts. The complainant had received such statements till May 2005 and since June 2005 he did not receive any such statement. Although he had paid Rupees 15,000 to the Standard Chartered Bank for one of the two credit cards. The complainants further case is that the Standard Chartered Bank has not credited some amount which the complainant had sent through the demand drafts. The complainant obtained three other credit cards from the said Standard Chartered Bank and the credit limits of those three credit cards was rupees 77,000.
Accordingly to the complainant the statement dated 22nd April 2007 issued by the Chartered Bank there was no dues to be paid by the complainant to the bank. suddenly he had received a statement from the Standard Chartered Bank claiming that he had debt a sum of rupees 28830.58 to the said bank in respect of one of the credit cards. The complainant found some discrepancies in the statement of the bank and he wrote to the bank with a request to rectify in respect of one of his credit cards but his request was ignored. Thereafter, on 28th March 2008 the Standard Chartered Bank has withdrawn the cash credit facilities from the complainant temporarily due to non-payment in respect of credit card and he was informed that the default matter would be reported to credit information bureau India Limited and he was cautioned that if non-payment of dues by the complainant the credit facilities would be withdrawn permanently.
subsequently the complainant was informed that the Standard Chartered Bank has already assigned its rights title and interest in respect of the credit cards of the complainant in favour of M/S Saha Finlease Pvt. Ltd that is OP number 4 of the consumer complaint and he was assured that OP number 4 would meet the request of the complainant in respect of any discrepancies highlighted by the complainant regarding his three credit cards. The complainant time and again approached the Standard Chartered Bank authority and also the M/S Saha Finlease Pvt. Ltd by letter dated 13th December 2010 and 27th Oct 2011. In response to which, on 25/10/2011, the Chennai office of Standard Chartered Bank had assured the complainant that the authority would look into the matter and asked him to bear with them for some time. According to the complainant the services on the part of the bank has been found negligent and deficient having no fault on the part of the complainant. The bank has failed to provide the proper statement of account against the said three credit cards of the complainant bearing number i) 5543-7586-8220-9784. ii) 9356-5508-2058-8283 and 4129-0586-9222-0193. The further case of the complainant is that the opposite party Bank was liable to refund the entire amount of the complainant which he deposited to the bank for using the credit cards who intentionally refuses to refund the same. The further case of the complainant is that in the month of July 2013 when the complainant approached the S.B.I. Siliguri branch for getting financial assistance, then the bank has refused to provide any loan or credit facilities to the complainant as the opposite party number 3 that is M/S Credit Information Bureau India Limited has already issued credit history of the complainant where he was declared as defaulter. The credit history and defaulting amount mentioned by the opposite party number 3 in the credit history to the tune of rupees 5,25178 and rupees 7,11,108 against the credit cards of the complainant which was not correct and for that reason his letter dated 15/10/ 2013 to approach through postal authority requesting them to delete said portion as shown as overdue and asked them to tender an unconditional apology. In response to that above letter. The opposite party Bank replied by a letter dated 27 November 2013 to the complainant to contact with opposite party number 4. The complainant’s case is that he has harassed by all the opposite parties and on their part of negligence, he has suffered from mental pain and agony and for that reason he has claimed compensation from the opposite parties to this case. The consumer complaint was admitted by the Ld. forum and the OP to that case were issued notice. The OP number 1 2 and 3 has contested the case. the opposite party number 1 and 2 jointly has contested the case by filing written version, disputed the material allegations levelled against the bank by the complainant and contended inter alia that the case was barred by limitation as the last transaction was held on 2008 that is six years back from the date of filing case and the specific averments of the opposite party number 1 and 2 is that the complainant was using the credit cards facilities issued by this Bank since 2003 and all the transaction was continued till 2008 and thereafter the company has sold out all its interest of credit card matters to M/S Saha Finlease Pvt. Ltd that is Op no. 4 and as such the bank has no liability in respect of the said credit cards. So, the complainant has got no relief against the standard Charted Bank, OP no. 4 that is M/S Saha Finlease Pvt. Ltd did not contest the case before the Ld. Forum by filing any written version. The written version was submitted before the Ld. Forum jointly by Op no. 1 and 2 and separately by Op no. 3. The written version of Op number 4 has not been furnished in this case. Though Ld. Forum mentions on its judgment, that OP no. 1, 2 and 4 had filed written version in this case jointly and Op no. 3 has filed separate written version. Op no. 3 has contested the case by filing written version, denied all material allegations levelled against the company and mentions in their written version that the credit cards of the complainant was sold out by OP no. 2 to the Op no. 4 that is M/S Saha Finlease Pvt. Ltd. The specific averment of the Op no. 3 in that case is that the complainant was not direct consumer, under the OP no. 3 as complainant has not obtained any service from this Company directly or purchased any product for consideration. The positive case of the Op no. 3 is that this Company functions as a credit information company in accordance with the provisions of the Company Act(regulation Act 2005) read with the credit information companies rule 2006. and this company engaged in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling , collating, collecting, processing and maintaining a data Bank of credit information relating to both inform and entities of all types whether in corporate or not for the use of Banks, Financial institution etc., dealing with the distribution of credit and according to the provisions of rule 31 of the said act except the Hon’ble Supreme Court and high Court, no other adjudicating authority has any jurisdiction to entertain any allegation of violating rule and provisions by this Company. The further case of the OP no. 3 is that any kind of settlement of dispute relating to the company affairs matters, the matters should be settled in arbitration and not in the Forum. The further case of the Op no. 3 is that no legal proceeding or prosecution are lied against this credit information company to discharge its function under the Act. The OP no. 3 in that case also has shifted burden upon OP no. 4 by mentioning it in reply letter dated 12/11/2013 to make a contact with OP no. 4 for any dispute to related transactions, credit cards or credit history. The final submission of the Op no. 3 in that case is that there was no privy of contact between the complainant and Opposite party no. 3. The Op no. 3 has got no liability to the claim of the complainant in the instant consumer dispute.
Ld. Consumer Forum has fixed two points for determination of the disputes after hearing all the parties concerned to this case and found that there was deficiency of service on the part of all the Opposite parties of this case and complainant was entitled to set reliefs as prayed for and all the Opposite parties of this case were jointly and severally directed to compensate the complainant and to execute order of the Ld. Forum. Being aggrieved with the said order, the two appeal follows as mentioned above and in dealing with the appeals, the appellants has mentioned in their memo of appeal that the Ld. Forum has failed to understand the exact provisions of law and has misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order which was not vested with the law and judgment and order passed by the Ld. Forum are liable to be set aside. In the two appeals, the same respondent Motilal Das has contested through Ld. Advocates Suresh Maitra and the appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides. During the hearing of the appeal, both the appellants and the respondent in the two cases has mentioned before the Commission that the subject matter of the two appeals are the same as the two appeal has arisen out of the same judgment and order and for that reason, the appeals was heard analogously and a single judgment of this Commission covers the two appeals bearing NO. RBR/A/54/2018 and RBR/A/57/2018
Decisions with reasons
Admittedly complainant has got two credit cards in his favour issued by the appellants bank and according to the complainant he has made full payment at the time of collecting the credit cards and he had addressed several occasions towards the appellant banks for any debt or overdue in respect of issuing the credit cards. it is also admitted that after bearing huge cost the complainant has approached before the Ld. forum to get some reliefs and his claims could not be rebutted by the appellant bank by tendering any cogent documents before the Ld. forum to negate the claims of the complainant. on the other hand if the /appellant banks that is the appeals of RBR/A/57/2018 in their written version before the Ld. Forum has admitted all the issues raised by the complainant and their specific defence is that after 2008 if they have assigned all liabilities and assets regarding the credit cards to the opposite party number 4 that is M/S Saha Finlease Pvt. Ltd. the appellants of RBR/A/57/2018 in their averments before the Ld. Forum and before this Commission has confined only in two aspects. First the consumer complaint was lodged after 6 years that is beyond the statutory time limit and secondly as they have transferred their interest and liabilities towards the credit cards to a third party i.e. OP no 4. They got no liability in respect of allegations of the complainant. Ld. forum at the time of adjudicating the disputes, has categorically mentioned that the consumer complaint had come before the Ld. from within statutory period of limitations and for that reason his consumer complaint was admitted as per law and thereafter the notice was issued upon the opposite parties of that case. Admittedly, according to the provisions of section 24A of consumer protection Act the complaint beyond statutory period may be entertained if the complainant satisfies the forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing complaint within such period. At the very outset of the case the Ld. forum was satisfied before accepting the consumer complaint and condoned the delay, judiciously and right now this contention should not be raised again before the appellate Forum. The second contention of the appellant banks is that if they sold out all the interest and liabilities of the credit cards to M/S Saha Finlease Pvt. Ltd of Bombai in 2010 and since then the consumer complaint had no relation with this bank after the date of Communication vide letter dated 26 August 2010 and 3rd January 2011. the bank has contended in their written version that after the assignment dated 9th February 2010 this OP bank has no right and interest or dues or outstanding against the credit cards of the complainant, as per rule of RBI. This averment is not acceptable here as because the provisions of CP. Act Protects the interest of the respondent of this case who was a bonafide customer under the appellant banks who cannot evade its liability only after transferring interest to the credit cards.
In RBR/A/54/2018 the appellant CIBIL in their written version challenged the case of the complainant to the score that this appellant company has to do all its related works based on the information provided by its various members, credit institutions in accordance with the provisions of the CICR Act, Rules and Regulations. And this appellant company is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and veracity of any and all information’s provided to the appellant by the member credit institutions. This appellant company has also tried to evade the responsibility of providing good service to the consumer complaint. Its contention is based to that score there was no relationship between the consumer complaint and this appellate company directly, as the respondent/complainant was not the direct consumer under the C.i.b.i.l. This argument is not attractive one as because the C.i.b.i.l is established under company law which is to provide the credit information and credit history to all the banks and all the financial institutions and they have the liability to confirm the correctness before publishing such informations showing any person, as defaulter while there was no cogent documents produced in this case to prove the respondent of these two appeals were actually a defaulter. No documents have come from the appellants of this case to show the allegations of the complainant that he has shown erroneously as a defaulter by which he was humiliated and deprived from securing any financial assistance from the banks was false one. The act and conduct of this appellant company shows that this company was not inclined to provide any sufficient service towards a consumer which he is directly or indirectly linked with the transaction, interference or information to credit cards and this attitude on the part of a registered company created under the provisions of Companies Act is not acceptable under the purview of the provisions of the CP Act where the CP Act has tried to provide sufficient safeguards upon the interest of bona fide consumers in hand of strong corporators.
Therefore, in our view no gross irregularity or mis conception is revealed to the findings of the Ld. Forum in the final order as because the Ld. Forum has categorically and very judiciously discussed over every pros and cons of this consumer dispute and delivered a reasoned order which is not liable, to be interfered as apparent in the appellate stage.
In this particular case, the OP no. 1 & 2 that is appellants of RBR/A/57/2018 has failed to produce any cogent documents before the Ld. Forum about the actual outstanding amount if there was any, to be paid by the complainant to the appellate company. Their transfer of the debts, rights and interest against the complainant’s credit card to OP no. 4, was not justified one. As they only took the shield of the RBI rules to evade their responsibility. They had the opportunity to produce cogent documents before Ld. Forum to establish the right of them before the Ld. Forum that they owe such money as outstanding from the complainant side. In RBR/A/54/2018, the appellant that is OP no. 3 of the original consumer complaint in their written version has shifted all the responsibility of citing credit history of the complainant and showing him defaulter, taking weapons of company rules and they also did not take the responsibility of furnishing false credit history showing complainant as loan defaulter which caused serious harm to the financial interest of the complainant where it is apparent that he had no fault of his own. The appellant company in RBR/A/54/2018 in their written version quoted the rule 31 of company rules and submitted before Ld. Forum that no Court or Authority shall have any jurisdiction to entertain for any violation of rule on the part of the company established under the companies Act is not also correct one in legal stand point as because Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly speaks that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. A bunch of documents which is produced by the complainant was rightly consulted by the Ld. Forum and no contrary evidence was tendered on the part of the Opposite Parties of that case to negate the claim of the complainant. No infirmity is detected in the final order of the Ld. Forum regarding the ascertainment of the truth revealed in the instant Consumer Dispute and there is no occasion in this particular two appeals to discard the finding of the Ld. Forum in this regard. So in the opinion of this Commission the two appeals devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
Hence it is,
Ordered
That the two appeals bearing no. RBR/A/54/2018 and RBR/A/57/2018 are hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The final order of Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in CC No. 3/S/2014 dated 9/8/2016 is hereby confirmed. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and also be sent to Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri by Email.
