JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant applied to HDFC Bank for a loan but was informed that the loan application had been rejected on account of his name appearing as a ‘Defaulter’ in the CIBIL record. When he contacted the customer care of OP-2 – Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (CIBIL), he was informed that in his CIBIL report there was an outstanding balance of Rs.65 lakhs reported by OP-1 Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. in the account ending with 2488. According to the complainant, he thereupon raised a dispute on 27.11.2013 which was forwarded by OP-2 to OP-1. On 12.2.2014, OP-2 informed the complainant that OP-1 Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. had confirmed the credit report provided by them with respect to the complainant and had reiterated that there was an outstanding balance of Rs.7176779/- in the account ending with 2488. Vide email dated 30.9.2015, the complainant was informed by Credit Information Bureau Ltd. that they had conducted a detailed analysis  and  found that the Credit Information Report (CIR) generated for him had details   of some  other person having account ending with 2488 and the said account did not belong to the complainant.  Thereafter, account number ending with 2488 and the amount shown outstanding against that account was removed and a new CIBIL report was generated in respect of the complainant with the credit score of 826. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission seeking damages quantified at Rs.1 crore 10 lakhs on account of the OPs having uploaded a false report of default on his part in repaying the dues of OP-1.

2.      I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the question as to whether the complaint is within the period of limitation prescribed in section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. A perusal of the documents filed by the complainant shows that on 4.8.2010, he had sent an email to OP-2 informing that his loan application to HDFC had been rejected on the ground that he had some outstanding showing him ‘Defaulter’. Thereafter some additional information seems to have been provided by the complainant to OP-2. He raised a CIBIL Dispute No.DIS11130159 dated 27.11.2013 stating therein that as informed by CIBIL representative, there was an outstanding of about Rs.65 lakhs with Standard Chartered Bank.  He also sought removal of his name from the aforesaid list. It was also stated in the aforesaid dispute that the complainant had a Standard Chartered Credit Card   which had been paid in full and the issue had been settled in court. Vide email dated 22.10.2015, OP-2 informed the complainant that they had forwarded his dispute to Standard Chartered Bank. However, the complainant has not placed on record the documents pertaining to his dispute with Standard Chartered Bank  and the settlement he had in the court  with the said bank.

3.      Vide email dated 30.9.2015, OP-2 informed the complainant that on enquiry it had been found that credit information details of another individual had been generated for him, due to similarity in the identifying details.

4.      It is, therefore, obvious that the information with respect to his name being shown as a ‘Defaulter’ in the CIBIL record had come to the knowledge of the complainant by 4.8.2010 when an email was sent by him to OP-2 complaining  in this regard.  By  27.11.2013 when he raised a dispute he had also come to know that the aforesaid information in the record of the  CIBIL had appeared on account of an outstanding amount of Rs.65 lakhs being shown as payable to Standard Chartered Bank. He was already aware of the issue he had with Standard Chartered Bank. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the cause of action to file this complaint had positively arisen by 27.11.2013 when the CIBIL dispute was raised by the complainant. The complaint ought to have been filed within two years thereafter, i.e., on or before 27.11.2015.

5.      The learned counsel for the complainant states that since the complaint made to CIBIL came to be resolved only vide email dated 30.9.2015, the complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation if the period of limitation is computed from the aforesaid date. However, in my opinion the date on which the issue came to be resolved by CIBIL, would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding as to when the cause of action first accrued to the complainant. In my opinion, the cause of action definitely arose when the complainant came to know, by 27.11.2013 that his name as a ‘Defaulter’ in the record of CIBIL had appeared on account of an outstanding amount of Rs.65 lakhs being shown against him towards Standard Chartered Bank. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 21.7.2017. Having been filed on 16.8.2017, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation  and no application for condonation of the said delay has been filed. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed as barred by limitation. It is however, made clear that the dismissal of the complaint on the aforesaid ground will not come in the way of the complainant,  availing such remedy other than a consumer complaint as may be open to him in law for the redressal of his grievance.