BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 16^th day of September 2014

Filed on : 27-04-2013

PRESENT:

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.314/2013

Between

K.N. Marzook, : Complainant

S/o. C.K. Kasmi, Flora, (By Adv. George Cherian

Sabarmathy road, Palarivattom P.O., Karippaparambil, Karippa-

Kochi-682 025. Parambil Associates,

HB-48, Panampilly Nagar,

Kochi-682 036)

And

1. Standard Chartered Bank, : Opposite parties

Cards Division, Perumanur, (By Adv. Sreekala Krishnadas

Ravipuram, Ernakulam, M/s. R & P Parters, 42/1917-C

Pin-682 015. Vallamattom Building, Old

Railway Station Cross

Road, Kombara,

Ernakulam-18.)

2. Crdit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., (By Adv. Rayanod Fernandez N,

Hoechst House, 6^th floor, M/s. Georege Thomas Mevada &

193 Backbay Assocates, SRM Road,

Reclamation, Nariman Point, Cochin-18)

Mumbai-400 021.

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a businessman. Presently the complainant is the

chairman of Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industries. The complainant was the consumer of the 1^st opposite party who is having credit card bearing No. 4563 9820 0030 8759 issued by the 1^st opposite party on 25-02-2010. The credit limit allowed to the complainant was Rs. 25,000/-. During February 2009 the complainant decided to discontinue and surrender the credit card due to overcharging and the frequent errors in billing committed by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant did do so. The 1^st opposite party has issued a letter dated 28-02-2004 stating that the total outstanding in the card account is Rs. 4,000/-. On receipt of letter on 01-03-2004 the complainant issued cheque No. 37183 dated 01-03-2009 drawn on Union bank of India, Marine Drive Branch. During February 2013 the complainant has applied for a credit card for M/s. HDFC Bank. During the processing of the credit card application, the HDFC Bank found that the complainant is a defaulter as per the credit information report of the 2^nd opposite party. As per the credit information report of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant is a defaulter in the credit card and the current balance in the credit card is shown as Rs. 3,90,063/- and the status is shown as written off causing severe damage to the credit worthiness of the complainant. Due to the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the 1^st opposite party the complainant was suffered mental agony and damages. The complainant is entitled to withdraw the information

showing the status that Rs. 3,90,063/- is written off and also entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs and costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The credit card account bearing No. 4563982000308759 under the category “Visa Silver International” had been extended by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant on 23-06-1999. The complainant was not a person who is making all payments in time without default. The complainant has not effected payments in the months of November 2000, January 2001 and post April 2002. Since the payments had not been effected on time the applicable late charges and the interest had been levied to the card account. Despite the 1^st opposite party’s repeated requests the complainant had taken no steps to make the payments towards the outstanding dues in the card account. The payment of Rs. 4,000/- had been effected by the complainant and the same had been adjusted towards card account on 04-03-2004. The 1^st opposite party had not received any request for surrender/closure of the card account post the above payment effected in the card account. On account of non-payment of dues post the above payment, the charges had been accruing in the account. As per the terms of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party, Reserve Bank of India guidelines and provisions of the Credit Information Companies Regulation Act , the 1^st opposite party is authorized and mandated to share the true and correct Credit Information of its customer with the 2^nd opposite party. As the dues against the complainant’s credit card account had been written off in the books of the 1^st opposite party, the appropriate credit history of the complainant had been reported to

the 2^nd opposite party. However, on receipt of the complaint, the applicable charges amounting to Rs. 4,54,837.24 had been reversed in the card account and the card zeroised in the records of the 1^st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The defense of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The complainant is not a consumer of the 2^nd opposite party. The Forum’s jurisdiction is barred under the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005. The 2^nd opposite party is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the complaint. the 2^nd opposite party is governed by the provisions of Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005. The 2^nd opposite party does not create any information of its own nor does it advise credit decisions to its members. Furnishing of credit information is strictly to closed user group of members, individuals and the specified users as permitted/required under the provisions of the CICR Act and the Rules and Regulations made under the Act. No relief can be granted to the complainant by this Forum as against the 2^nd opposite party other than direct the reporting credit institution to take necessary steps to update the credit information which is disputed. This complaint is liable to be dismissed against the 2^nd opposite party.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A4 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:

i. Whether the complaint is maintainable against the 2^nd

opposite party?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to withdraw the

information showing the status that Rs. 3,90,063 as written

off?

iii. Whether the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs to the proceedings to the complainants ?

6. Point No. i. It was for the complainant to decide whether to approach the redress mechanism under the provisions of Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act or to litigate before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent piece of legislation and provides additional remedy to a consumer. If two different Forums have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute with regard to the same subject matter, jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums could not be barred and the power of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon the dispute can not be negated as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishorelal Vs. Chairman Employees State Insurance Corpn. (2007) 4 SCC 579. Thus we find that this Forum has amble jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

7. Point No. ii. Admittedly the complainant had been a credit card holder of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant decided to surrender the credit card for his own reasons and at his instance the 1^st opposite party issued Exbt. A1 letter dated 28-02-2004 which reads as follows:

“Sub:- STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Card A/c.

No. 4563 9820 0030 8759

This is to inform you that your account will be fully settled on payment of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) in cash in one shot on 01^st March 2004.

Failure to honor this commitment, this offer will stand cancelled and we will be entitled to demand the entire amount outstanding on the account at that point of time.

. Cheque subject to realization

Kindly Sign a copy of this letter as an acceptance to the above. You will be issued the final settlement letter as soon your final payment is credited. “

8. In furtherance of Exbt. A1 letter, the complainant send a cheque for the like amount drawn in favour of the 1^st opposite party and on 03-03-2004 the 1^st opposite party encashed the cheque evidenced by Exbt. A2 account statement. In 2013 the complainant approached HDFC Bank to avail a credit card. Against his request the HDFC bank sent Exbt. A3 letter dated 18-03-2013 which is as under:

“ Thank you for your interest in HDFC Bank international Credit Card.

We wish to inform you that your application has been considered in line with the Bank’s internal credit policy (which is based on a combination of financial and related criteria and/or statistically determined scores to assess credit eligibility) and operating/credit processes (which include a combination of verifications, credit bureau reports and document verifications) We regret to inform you that we are unable to approve your

application as it does not meet the above mentioned international

criteria of the Bank.

Please be assured that our inability to approve the credit card application does not reflect in any way on your credit standing or your financial stability. We would be pleased to provide any other assistance/service that you may require.

Thank you once again.

Assuring you of our best attention at all times

This is a computer generated letter and does not require signature.

Please note that all credit card benefits/facilities including third party products as opted by you in the application will not be processed due to non-approval of your credit card application. Any financial/non-financial liability arising due to the same would be borne by the Bank.”

9. In consequence of Exbt. A3 letter the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party, to which the 1^st opposite party sent Exbt. A4 letter dated 11-10-2013 which reads as follows:

“We refer to your recent communication regarding your card account.

We wish to confirm that your card ending 8759 has been canceled with the effect from February 01, 2003. As on date there is no outstanding payable by you. We wish to confirm that we have update in the CIBIL accordingly.

We request you to recheck you CIBIL report, incase of discrepancy we request you to revert us with the scanned copy of the recent CIBIL report for us to investigate further.

Assuring you of our best services always”.

10. Evidently the complainant settled the entire due in the credit card in 2004 for the amount suggested by the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party has also acknowledged the same. With all

that, his name from the list of the 2^nd opposite party has not deleted, instead his name is shown as a defaulter with an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,90,063/-. A customer who has settled the account is not to be harassed by putting his name in the list of defaulters and not correcting it despite being informed. It is all because of the hostile and lackadaisical attitude of the 1^st opposite party especially since no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the part of the 1^st opposite party for the above anomaly.

11. The guidelines issued by RBI on 01-07-2006 reads as follows:

“In case of information relating to credit history repayment record of the card holder to a credit information company (specially authorized by RBI) the bank/NBFC may explicitly bring to the notice of the customer that such information is being provided in terms of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005. Before reporting default status of a credit card holder of the CIBIL or any other credit information company authorized by RBI, banks/NBFCs should ensure that they adhere to a procedure, duly approved by their Board, including issuing of sufficient notice to such card holder about the intention to report his/her as defaulter to the credit information company. The procedure should also cover the notice

period for such reporting as also the period within which such report will be withdrawn in the event of the customer settles his dues after

having been reported as defaulter. Banks/NBFCS should be particularly careful in the case of cards where there are pending disputes. This disclosure/release of information, particularly about

the default should be made only after the dispute is settled as far as possible”.

12. In the instant case these procedure was not at all followed. The above conduct on the part of the 1^st opposite party not only amounts to deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice.

13. Point No. iii. The word compensation has been given wide connotation by the Hon’ble Supere Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, held as under :

“The word 'Compensation' is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means 'compensating or being compensated' thing given as re-compense. In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical mental or even emotional suffering, insult, injury or loss. Therefore when the commission has been rested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or service and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation. The provision in our opinion enables a consumer to claim and empowers

the commission to redress any injustice done to him. The commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.”

14. We have also extended the term ‘compensation’ beyond what the Hon’ble Apex Court has said, that if a service provider forces a consumer to seek legal remedy without redressing his grievance at their own end, it all the more adds to the mental agony including unnecessary expense etc. as the legal remedy is becoming

costlier day by day and going beyond the reach of common man. Accordingly we deem that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant which includes the costs of the proceedings is enough and adequate to meet the ends of justice. It is made clear that we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

15. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

i.The 1^st opposite party shall take suitable action to get

deleted the name of the complainant from the list of the

2^nd opposite party.

ii.The 2^nd opposite party shall forthwith delete the name of

the complainant from the list of defaulters as and when

they receive request from the 1^st opposite party.

iii. The 1^st opposite party shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- to

the complainant by way of compensation and costs of

the proceedings. For the reasons dismissed above.

The above order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the above amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of September 2014.

Sd/-

A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant’s exhibits :

Ext. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 28-02-2004

A2 : Copy of statement

A3 : Copy of letter dt. 11-09-2013

A4 : Copy of letter dt. 11-10-2013

Opposite party’s exhibits : Nil