Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/29/2013

P.Delli Babu Reddy,S/o.P.Venkatachalapathi Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bajaj Finance Ltd.,Rep. by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

16 Dec 2014

ORDER

Date of first filing:30.04.2013

Date of first disposal: 10.06.2012

Matter remanded and record received on :18.08.2014

Date of disposal:16.12.2014

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

TUESDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.29/2013

 

Between

 

P.Delli Babu Reddy,

S/o.P.Venkatachalapathi Reddy,

D.No.20-4-34/G3, Jayalakshmi Street,

Kothapalli,

Tirupati – 517 501,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         The Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

8-50, B/B, 2^nd Floor, Saroja Towers,

Opp. RDO Office,

AIR Byepass Road, 

Tirupati – 517 502.

 

2.         The Bajaj Finance Ltd.

            Rep. by the Senior Manager - Legal,

            4^th Floor, Survey No.208/1B,

            Viman Nagar,

            Pune – 411 014.

 

3.         The Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Hoechst House, 6^th Floor,

193, Back Bay Reclamation,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021                                                               …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 03.12.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Sudarsan Babu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Samanchi Srinivas, counsel for opposite parties, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant claiming Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss sustained by him due to non-sanction of loan by S.B.I., Tirupati, on the ground that his credit account is still pending.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-   that the complainant availed financial assistance from the opposite parties under 3 heads viz. (1).hire purchase agreement bearing No.442021970 dt:07.08.2004 for purchase of HP / COMPAQ  P.C., (2) hire purchase agreement bearing No.442097153 dt:06.06.2008 for purchase of Hitachi Split – 1.5 AC and (3) hire purchase agreement bearing No.442097154 dt:06.06.2008 over purchase of Hitachi Split – 1.5 AC. The credit information availed by the complainant was registered by opposite parties 1 and 2 with opposite party No.3.

            3.  Subsequently, the complainant has paid and cleared-off the loans availed by him and opposite party No.1 has issued NOC 1) on 21.02.2012, 2) on 09.04.2012 and 3) on 30.03.2012. After full settlement of loans, the complainant informed opposite party No.2 through his letter dt:23.03.2012 requesting opposite party No.2 to delete his credit information from their records by enclosing the copies of NOC 1 to 3. He also sent e-mail on 09.04.2012 to opposite party No.2 but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant got issued notices once on 28.07.2012 and another one on 18.09.2012 to opposite party No.2, requesting him to withdraw the credit information relating to the complainant from their records within 7 days after receipt of the notices.

            4.  The complainant approached S.B.I., Tilak Road, Tirupati, seeking loan of Rs.40,00,000/-. But the S.B.I. informed through their letter dt:16.02.2013 along with return proposal stating that the credit information relating to the financial assistance availed by the complainant from opposite parties 1 and 2, is still existing in the records of opposite party No.3. Thereupon, the complainant through his letter dt:23.03.2013 brought the matter to the notice of R.B.I.. Inspite of his efforts, no corrective action was taken by opposite party No.3 to delete the credit information relating to the complainant from the records of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

            5.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their written version denying the complaint allegations and further contended that the complainant committed default in payment of EMI’s in respect of his loan account bearing No.442097153 and also in respect of his loan account No.442097154 for 5^th EMI @ Rs.2063/- and Rs.2062/- respectively, as the cheque bearing No.3643993 dt:05.11.2008 for Rs.4,125/- was dishonoured for the reasons “insufficient funds”. That out of the penalty amount of Rs.1900/- in respect of the dishonoured cheque referred to above (5^th EMI), only a sum of Rs.350/- was paid and the remaining penalty amount of Rs.1550/- is still due. That the complainant made cash payment towards loan account No.442097152 towards dishonoured 5^th EMI of Rs.2062/- and penalty of Rs.2669/- on 27.03.2013 vide receipt No.20021516, remaining amount of Rs.5051/- was not paid. However the penalty  amount of Rs.6,601/- was waived-off and updated the same in CIBIL report and it can be seen from the reply dt:13.08.2012 given by the opposite parties to the complainant and informed the same to the CIBIL. Confirmation to that effect was also received from CIBIL on 07.08.2012, “Written off” status was getting reflected in the CIBIL report and in the books of opposite parties.

            6.  The loan application of complainant to S.B.I was subsequently rejected due to the reason “Written off” status was appearing in the CIBIL report and the opposite parties came to know about the grievances of the complainant in the loan account No.442097154 only through complainant letter dt:23.03.2012 to R.B.I. In his earlier letters dt:28.07.2012 and 18.09.2012, no loan account No.442097154 is mentioned. The opposite parties, though complainant is a defaulter, once again as a special case, requested the CIBIL to remove even “Written off” status from CIBIL records, which can be seen in opposite parties reply dt:16.04.2013 to the complainant and in the e-mails dt:16.04.2013 and 18.04.2013 to CIBIL. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            7.  The complainant is defaulter in payment of EMI’s not only in respect of the account No.442097154 but also in his account No.442097153. Even then, out of goodwill, as a special case, the opposite parties have waived-off penalty and even removed the “Written off” status from CIBIL records. There is no deficiency in service, as such, on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is filed unlawful and the complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint.

            8.  Heard the counsel for both sides. Exs.A1 to A12 marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

                  parties 1 to 3?

            (ii).  Whether the S.B.I. Tilak Road, Tirupati, rejected the loan application of

                    the complainant on the ground that “Write off” status is existing in the

                    records of CIBIL only?

            (iii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iv).  To what relief?

            10.  Point No.(i):-   To answer this point, it is for the complainant to establish firstly that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Because of the said deficiency in service only, he could not avail loan from the S.B.I., Tilak Road, Tirupati. Admittedly, the complainant availed three loans under the hire purchase agreement No. 1) 442021970 dt:07.08.2004 2) hire purchase agreement No.442097153 dt:06.06.2008 and 3) hire purchase agreement No.442097154 dt:06.06.2008. The complainant also paid the amounts and NOC’s in three numbers in respect of above three loans, which were issued by opposite party No.1 on 28.02.2012, 09.04.2012 and on 30.03.2012. The main grievance of the complainant is that though he has paid and cleared-off all the three loans, the “Write off” status was still existing in the records of opposite party No.3 i.e. Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., Mumbai, as such, his loan application was rejected by S.B.I. Tilak Road, Tirupati, for sanction of loan of Rs.40,00,000/-, as such he sustained loss. The opposite parties specifically contended that the complainant committed default in payment of EMI’s in respect of his loan account Nos. 442097153 and 442097154. The cheque issued by the complainant in respect of 5^th EMI bearing No.3643993 was dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient funds”, as such penalty was imposed for the amounts covered by dishonoured cheque, out of Rs.1900/- of the penalty amount, the complainant paid only Rs.350/- and the remaining penalty amount of Rs.1550/- was due. Subsequently, he paid some amounts by cash. Even then a sum of Rs.5051/- was due. The opposite parties, however, waived-off the default charges of Rs.6,601/- and updated the same in CIBIL report and it can be seen from the reply dt:13.08.2012. The complainant cleared-off the 2^nd loan on 09.04.2012, the correspondence was made by opposite parties 1 and 2 with opposite party No.3 and gave reply dt:13.08.2012. It is apparent to record that the opposite parties have waived-off default charge of Rs.6,601/- and also recorded “write off” status. “Write off” status is not an allegation against the complainant. Though he committed default in payment of equal monthly installments in respect of his two accounts bearing Nos.442097153 and 442097154, the said default amount was also waived-off by the opposite parties, that too, as a special case and goodwill. The transactions that were transpired between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 were narrated in their documents Exs.B1 to B4. The written version, chief affidavits as well as written arguments filed by the opposite parties shows that the loan term is 12 months, whereas the complainant has taken 43 months to clear-off the loans. This itself shows that he is irregular in payment of EMI’s. The last payment made by the complainant is on 09.04.2012, but the complainant has addressed a letter to the opposite party No.2 on 23.03.2012, that is even before making payment of the amount due under the loan account No.442097153.

            11.  The cheque bearing No.3643993 dt:05.11.2008 issued by the complainant was bounced / dishonoured, that the complainant has committed default in payment of 5^th EMI in respect of his loan accounts 442097153 and 442097154. Out of Rs.1900/- of penalty amount, the complainant has paid only Rs.350/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1550/- was also left unpaid. Later, the complainant paid some amounts and the remaining amount was waived-off by the opposite parties. The 5^th EMI of Rs.2062/- in respect of loan account No.442097154, the complainant has paid amount in cash, another penalty amount of Rs.5051/- was also not paid according to the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties have waived-off default charges of Rs.6,601/- and updated the account. They also informed the same to CIBIL, so the opposite parties have extended their services to their level best to the complainant, as such we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            12.  Point No.(ii):- To answer this point, I am to state that Exs.A9, A10 and A11 dt:16.02.2013, dt:21.12.2012 and 20.01.2012 respectively shows that the loan application of the complainant was rejected on the grounds mentioned in Exs.A9, A10 and A11. Ex.A9 dt:16.02.2013 shows that S.B.I., Tilak Road, Tirupati, while returning the loan proposal of the complainant dt:06.02.2012 for Rs.40,00,000/- mentioned the grounds 1) that the loan account No.31141220243 (not concerned with the opposite parties) was made standard in January 2000 with present arrears of Rs.13,304/-. But other previous irregularity persists. 2) “written off” status in CIBIL reports (consumer loan) should be deleted from the system. 3) The loan proposal will be considered after regular payment of installments for 12 months. So far as the loan obtained by the complainant from opposite parties 1 and 2 was completed almost by 09.04.2012. Therefore, the question of regular payment of installments for 12 months does not arise in the loans obtained by the complainant from opposite parties 1 and 2.

            13.  The complainant presented the loan application before S.B.I., Tilak Road, Tirupati, on 06.02.2013.

            14.  Ex.A10 dt:21.12.2012, document filed by the complainant reveals that the complainant has availed 11 housing loans; 1 loan against shares / securities; 1 loan for commercial vehicle; 3 consumer loans; 1 business loan, and 1 property loan, totally the complainant availed 18 loans from S.B.I. and they were not disclosed while application before S.B.I., Tilak Road, Tirupati. As per the enquiry made by CIBIL through its member i.e. S.B.I, those loans were came to light. As per Ex.A10 dt:21.12.2012, the complainant got total 11 accounts, out of them over due accounts are 3 in number; and his balance accounts are 6 in number. High credit sanction to the complainant is Rs.64,01,965/-, current balance is Rs.52,12,756/- i.e. by 17.09.2011  and over due is Rs.3,45,326/-, which is oldest according to Ex.A10. As such it cannot be said that S.B.I., Tilak Road, Tirupati, has rejected the loan application of complainant only on the ground that “written off” status was existing in the records of CIBIL in respect of the complainant for the loan obtained by him from opposite parties 1 and 2. Ex.A11 shows that the complainant has made an application for sanction of Rs.40,00,000/- on 06.02.2013 and the same was returned on 16.02.2013. So, on the face of record it is apparent that the ground for returning the loan application of the complainant by S.B.I., Tilak Road, Tirupati, are on previous loans he obtained from S.B.I. and existing “written off” status in respect of his loans with opposite parties, exhibiting in the records of opposite party No.3 is one among the other grounds for rejection of his loan by S.B.I. Accordingly this point is answered.

            15.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our discussion held on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his allegations made against the  opposite parties 1 and 2, and also failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation and the complainant is also not entitled to the compensation claimed. Accordingly this point is answered.

            16.  Point No.(iv):- In view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

            Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 16^th day of December, 2014.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                     

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1: P.Delli Babu Reddy (Affidavit filed).

 

RW-1:  Bhushan. Ajiwade (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Copy of NOC issued by the 1st Opposite Party Dt: 21.02.2012.
2.	Copy of NOC issued by 1st Opposite Party Dt: 09.04.2012.
3.	Copy of NOC issued by 1st Opposite Party Dt: 30.03.2012.
4.	Office copy of letter of the complainant to Opposite Party Dt: 23.03.2012.
5.	Email sent by the complainant to 2nd Opposite Party Dt: 09.04.2012.
6.	Office copy of Legal Notice issued to 2nd Opposite Party Dt: 28.07.2012.
7.	Reply of 2nd Opposite Party to the legal notice. Dt: 13.08.2012.
8.	Office copy of Legal Notice issued to 2nd Opposite Party Dt: 18.09.2012.
9.	Letter of SBI addressed to the complainant. Dt: 16.02.2013.
10.	Photocopy of Consumer credit information report of CIBIL 3rd Opposite Party relating to complainant. Dt: 21.12.2012.
11.	Office copy of letter of the complainant to RBI Dt: 23.03.2013.
12.	Reply of 2nd Opposite Party. Dt: 16.04.2013.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1	A Photocopy of Account Statement from 06.06.2008 to 10.04.2012.  LAN No.442097153 and Account Statement from 06.06.2008 to 30.03.2012. LAN No.442097154. Dt: 13.08.2014
2	A Photocopy of Reply letter sent to Complainant. Dt: 13.08.2012
3	CIBIL Conformation received through Email 7th August. Dt: 13.08.2012
4	A Photocopy of Reply sent to complainant and RBI Dt:16.04.2013 and Email to CIBIL.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-        

                                                                                                                President

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.