Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/567/2023

ANUJ DEWAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

ANUJ DEWAN

01 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/567/2023
Date of Institution	:	11.12.2023
Date of Decision	:	01/07/2024

 

Anuj Dewan S/o Shri Ashwani Dewan having office at SCO 50-51, Third Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh - 160022

 

...Complainant

Versus

 

1. State Bank of India through Branch Manager, Jeewan Tara Building, New Delhi-110 001

2. TransUnion CIBIL Limited through Managing Director, One World Centre, Tower 2A, 19th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400 013

.  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	OP No.1 exparte
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Anuj Dewan complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  initially the complainant had obtained homeloan from India Bulls   Housing Finance Limited and thereafter he approached OP No.1 for seeking transfer of the said loan  and OP No.1 sanctioned loan amount of Rs.10,50,000/-  for a term of 10 years. The EMI for the loan was fixed at Rs.12,200/-. Copy of home loan details  is annexed as Annexure C-1. The OP No.1 has also offered an insurance loan  on payment of Rs.12,303/-,  by assuring that in case the complainant is died during the tenure of the loan, the loan account would be closed and nothing would be due and payable by the legal heirs of the complainant.  A separate loan account namely SBI Suraksha was opened on payment of Rs.12,303/- and the EMI for the said loan was fixed at Rs.110/-  Copy of Insurance Loan is annexed as Annexure C-2.  The complainant had also made all payments on time as the loan installments were being deducted automatically from the account of the complainant on 20^th day of every month and the EMI for SBI Surksha  was got deducted on 10^th day of every month. The complainant got the loan accounts closed vide letter Annexure C-3 dated 4.8.2022, after making full and final payment.  The details of payment is reflected in Annexure C-1 and C-2.  Thereafter when the complainant was looking to purchase the new car and he approached the bank, it was pointed out by the bank Manager that 07 payment defaults from January 2022 upto July 2022 were showing in SBI Surksha account  as per credit report  of the complainant.  The complainant vide email dated 30.12.2022 informed the OP No.1 about the irregularity and error in the report prepared by OP No.2 at the instance of OP No.1.  The complainant had also informed that he had already closed both his loan accounts after making all payments to the OPNo.1 and thereafter requested OP No.1 to rectify the error and also communicated the said fact  to OP No.2 who was  generating incorrect  report  and the copy of statement of account showing on time payment  is annexed as Annexure C-5 whereas true CIBIL repot annexed as Annexure C-6. However, OP No.1 refused to redress the grievance of the complainant, forcing the complainant to write another letter Annexure C-7 dated 12.9.2023  to the OPs but despite of that nothing has been done by the Ops .  Thereafter OP No.1 has sent email dated 25.9.2023  Annexure C-8 acknowledging  the request made by the complainant. The copy of reply received from OP No.2 is annexed as Annexure C-9.   The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1  was properly served and when OP No.1 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 12.2.2024.
3. OP No.2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of actions, jurisdiction. It is further alleged that OP No.2  functioning as credit information company in accordance with the provisions of the Credit Companies (Regulation ) Act, 2005  read with the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 and the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the answering OP  and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. complainant chose not to file rejoinder.

 

2. In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant had got  the subject loan account transferred from India Bulls to OP No.1 who sanctioned loan amount of Rs.10,50,000/- in favour of the complainant and had also insured the said loan by sanctioning another loan  of Rs.12,303/-  in favour of  complainant and the complainant has paid entire loan amount i.e. the principal loan amount as well as the insurance premium loan amount  and till date the CIBIL score of the complainant has not been corrected  by the OPs, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs have wrongly been generating incorrect CIBIL score of the complainant  in their record despite  of the fact that complainant has closed  both the loan accounts by making payment as per payment schedule and even before the loan term  and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if  the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of OP No.2.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that home loan of Rs.10,50,000/- was sanctioned by OP No.1 in favour of the complainant  whereas another  loan of Rs.12,303/-  i.e. EB-SBI Surksha  was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the OPs  and the complainant has paid the entire amount of both the aforesaid loans  by making installments as per payment schedule and lastly paid  entire balance amount  of both the loans on 5.8.2022 as is also evident from copies of statements of accounts Annexure C-1 and C-2 showing that there was zero balance  in both the loan accounts of the complainant on 5.8.2022. Annexure C-3  further indicates that the complainant has requested the OP No.1 to close the loan accounts on 4.8.2022. Annexure C-6  indicates that the CIBIL of the complainant has been shown as poor. Annexure C-7 is another letter  sent by the complainant to OP No.1 for correction of CIBIL score and copy of the same was also endorsed to OP No.2 and was replied by OP No.2  vide reply Annexure C-9.
   3. Learned counsel for complainant has stated that as it stands proved on record that the complainant has paid the entire loan amount to OP No.1 well in advance and despite of that the CIBIL score of the complainant was not updated by the OPs, as a result of which the complainant has suffered a lot of harassment and mental agony and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for.
   4. On the other hand the learned counsel for OP No.2 has stated that the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed against OP No.2.
   5. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for OP No.2 as it has come on record that the CIBIL score of the complainant is still wrongly reflected in the record of OPNo.2, despite of the fact that the complainant has paid the entire loan amounts well before the terms of the loans  as is evident from Annexure C-1 and C-2 and Annexure C-3. Hence, in our opinion, in the case in hand  there is discrepancy in the credit report prepared by OP No.2 and the OP No.2 has not corrected the same despite of request of the complainant and the fact that the complainant has already paid the entire loan amounts.  Thus, in our opinion this Commission  has the authority to order OP No.2 to rectify the error in the credit report as the record of OP No.2 still showing discrepancy  and causing harm to the complainant especially when it has further come on record that OP No.1 has not brought true facts qua the payment of loan amount by the complainant to OP No.2 and in this manner, both the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant..
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs No.1&2 are directed as under :-

1. to set right the CIBIL Score of the complainant immediately.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5. This order be complied with by the OPsNo.1&2 jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr. No (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days till realisation, apart from compliance of directions at Sr. No.(i)& (iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/07/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member