Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

203/2014

C.R.Shankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank, rep. by Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

J.Jayabalan

03 May 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  25.09.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  03.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 03^rd  DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.203/2014

 

 

 

Mr.C.R.Shankar,

No.L-32/A, Bharathi Dasan Colony,

K.K.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 078.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. Standard Chartered Bank,

Represented by its Manager,

No.19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2. Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Director,

Plot No:17/9,

MIDC Taloja,

Tal Panvel Dist,

Rajgad, Navi Mumbai – 410 208.

 

 

 

 

3. Trans Union Cibil Limited,

Rep. by its Director,

Registered Office at One India Bulls Centre,

Tower 2A-2B, 19^th Floor,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel,                            (Amended as per order dated 27.09.2017 in

Mumbai – 400 013.                   CMP .No.127/17)

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 28.10.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. J.Jayabalan

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : R & P Partners

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                      : Ex – parte (on 21.11.2014)

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                      : M/s. C.Manishankhar,

                                                                    K.Krishnamoorthy, J.Vasu, &

                                                                    S.Arunprasad

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the 3^rd opposite party to remove the address found in the complainant’s CBIL status reports and to furnish the correct report to the complainant and also to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

 

 

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant approached the HDFC Bank in the first week of July 2014 for personal loan for his daughter’s marriage. The bank had checked the CIBIL status of the complainant. To his surprise there were two credit card entries showing that he had defaulted in paying the credit card and the amount has been written off. The complainant raised on line dispute to the 3^rd opposite party on 16.07.2014 to clarify the two credit cards accounts  for Control No. 725392868 totaling to Rs.1,03,60,808/- shown as over  due under his name. The address found L-1, Block – B, Bharathidasan Colony is not his address.

          2. The 3^rd opposite party sent an e-mail to the complainant on 17.07.2014 that the account details reflected were furnished by the credit institution the 2^nd opposite party and the said name is changed from Standard Chartered Bank (1^st opposite party) to Shaha Finlease (2^nd opposite party) and also advised to seek any clarification from the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant wrote to the 2^nd opposite party on 18.07.2014 seeking details about the two credit cards accounts. Though the 2^nd opposite party received the same failed to provide details.

          3. The complainant received an e-mail on 31.07.2014 from the 3^rd opposite party that the phone number of 2345678 reflected in the report is ICICI Bank and he can seek any clarification from them. On 06.08.2014 the 3^rd opposite party sent an e-mail that they are in the process of verifying disputed accounts of 2^nd opposite party and the address L-1, Block – B, Bharathidasan Colony is not reflecting in this record. However, the said address is reflecting in his CIBIL report dated 18.07.2014. The 3^rd opposite party sent an e-mail on 11.08.2014 stating that they had done in-depth analysis of the dispute raised by the complainant and observed that an another individuals credit report was inadvertently mixed with the complainant report and the information was provided by the 2^nd opposite party. This clearly establishes the negligently act of the opposite party which caused mental agony to the complainant.

          4. The opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to follow the RBI guidelines before reporting the date of the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party and thereby committed deficiency in service. The complainant is a Manager of an other Nationalized Bank and due to the act of the opposite parties; he faced harassment in the midst of the other employees. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint to direct the 3^rd opposite parties to remove the address found in the complainant’s CBIL status reports and to furnish him the correct report to the complainant and also direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him with cost of the complaint.               

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is not a Consumer in respect of this opposite party, at no point of time and no service was provided by this opposite party to the complainant. He is only a third party as for as this opposite party is consent. The complainant grievance can be redressed only before the competent civil court and not before this forum. The complainant unnecessarily filed this complainant to tarnish the image of this opposite party. The other averment made in the complaint is denied. This opposite party has not committed any deficiency to the complainant and prays to the dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          There is no privity of contrat between the complainant and this opposite party and this opposite party has not provided any service to the complainant. This opposite party is not residing within the jurisdiction of this forum and on that score the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7. This opposite party engaged in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling, collating, collecting and maintaining a data base of credit information relating to individuals and entities for the use of banks, financial institution and non banking financial institutions. The system was generating credit information report (CIR) which was fed by the member of this institution. While generating report there may be a chance for accounts with common name and details to be merged due to the similarity in the nature of the parameter and identifications. This opposite party duly replied to the complainant. The updated CIR was sent to the complainant by this opposite party vide mail dated 13.08.2014.  Hence the grievance of the complainant is redressed and resolved.

8. This opposite party is not aware of the transaction between the complainant and HDFC Bank. The complainant raised online dispute and that was registered immediately and also resolved. The complainant is not a consumer and this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

10. POINT NO :1        

          The complainant approached the HDFC Bank in the first week of July for personal loan for his daughter’s marriage. The bank checked the CIBIL status of the complainant and found that the credit card entries showing that the complainant defaulted in paying a sum of Rs.1,03,60,808/-. Further the address column a new address i.e L-1, block – B Bharathidasan Colony, reflected and the said address is not that of the complainant. On the same day on 16.07.2014, the complainant sent a mail to the 3^rd opposite party and sought details of two credit cards over due and the provided information. The 3^rd opposite party sent Ex.A3 reply dated 17.07.2014 to the complainant that the information furnished by the credit institution is Shaha and who is a member of the institution and the member name changed from 1^st opposite party name to the 2^nd opposite party’s name. The complainant wrote to the 2^nd opposite party by a mail dated 18.07.2014 and however no reply received from him. The 3^rd opposite party also sent Ex.A6 e-mail dated 31.07.2014 to the complainant that the personal information provided in the report is correct and further the new address is not reflected in their information.

          11. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties are that

1. the 3^rd opposite party maintained wrong information that he is defaulted in paying two credit cards amount and also a new address  is reflected against his name and
2. the 3^rd opposite party himself stated to him that the information was furnished to him by the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party has taken over from the 1^st opposite party and therefore they are liable for wrong information.

The 1^st opposite party has taken a defense that he has not provided any service to the complainant and he is only a third party to him and therefore the complainant cannot be regarded as a Consumer. Admittedly the complainant has not pleaded in the complaint or filed any documents to establish that he had availed the services of the opposite parties 1 & 2. From the available pleading, the complainant would state that the 3^rd opposite party only informed him that the 1^st & 2^nd opposite party furnished information to the CIBIL about the nonpayment in respect of two credit cards. Even if the opposite parties 1 & 2 furnished such information to the CIBIL, the same could be only a civil liability and not deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act. Since the complainant has not availed any service from the opposite parties 1 & 2, we hold that the complainant is not a Consumer in respect them and therefore it is further held that the opposite parties 1 &2 have not committed any deficiency in service.

12. The 3^rd opposite party admits that on furnishing information by the member Shaha the nonpayment of credit cards and one new address L-1, Block-B, Bharathidasan Colony is reflected. However, on receiving letter from the complainant about the same and after thorough investigation after deleting those information and updated civil report was sent to the complainant under Ex.A12 mail dated 13.08.2014. This was also not disputed by the complainant. Therefore, the 3^rd opposite party after rectifying the defect pointed out by the complainant the report was sent to him.

13. The complainant approached for a loan in the first week of July 2014 and due to CIBIL status he was unable to get the loan. After complaint made by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party he had rectified the same and a report was also sent to the complainant almost in a month i.e on 13.08.2014. After that the complainant should have approached the bank again for availing loan. However, there is no evidence that why he had not approached the bank to get loan for his daughter’s marriage or how he arranged loan for his daughter’s marriage. The defect was rectified immediately within a month by the 3^rd opposite party. Further the 3^rd opposite party maintain the records which were fed by the members of the financial institutions. The 3^rd opposite party on his own never fed any particulars in the CIBIL status. The complaint is field only after a month of rectification of the CIBIL status. There is no need for the complainant to file this complaint after rectification made in the CIBIL status. Therefore, we hold that the 3^rd opposite party also has not committed any deficiency in service  to the complainant.

14. POINT NO:2

          We held above that the complainant is not a consumer in respect of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the 3^rd opposite party only fed the information in the CIBIL status what was furnished by it members. However, against the name of the complainant some wrong information in respect of nonpayment of credit cards due and one wrong address was reflected. Such information not fed in connection with service to be provided by the opposite parties to the complainant. Such a defect on the part of the opposite parties could be only to the extent of civil liability and if at all the complainant is aggrieved, he can work out his remedy before the civil court and not in this forum and accordingly this point is answered.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to file a Civil Suit with same set of cause of action within two months from the date of this order and  to work out his remedy if any in the manner known to law. There will be no order as to costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 03^rd day of May 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 16.07.2014                   Third opposite party to complainant

Ex.A2 dated 16.07.2014                   Complainant to 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 17.07.2014                   Third opposite party to complainant

Ex.A4 dated 18.07.2014                   Complainant to 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 18.07.2014                   Complainant to 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A6 dated 31.07.2014                   3^rd opposite party to the complainant

                     06.08.2014

 

Ex.A7 dated 03.08.2014                   Complainant to 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A8 dated 11.08.2014                   3^rd opposite party to complainant

Ex.A9 dated 07.09.2011                   3^rd opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A10 dated 05.06.2011                 Third opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A11 dated 16.07.2014                 Third opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A12 dated 13.08.2004                 Third opposite party to the complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 27.10.2010                   Account Statement of Mr.Ramamoorthy Shankar

 

Ex.B2 dated 27.10.2010                   Account Statement of Mr.R.Shankar

 

Ex.B3 dated 13.07.2005                   Circular issued by Reserve Bank of India

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B4 dated 02.02.2015                   Forwarded E-mail Letter        

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT