DATE OF FILING :30/03/17 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of October 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.  66/2017

Between

Complainant       :    P.K.Sabu,

                                                         Punnathanathu House,

                                                         Padamukham P.O., Idukki – 685 604.

And

Opposite Party                                          :   1 . The Branch Manager,

                                                         Canara Bank, Murickassery P.O.,

                                                         Idukki 685 604

                                                         (By Adv: Biju Mathew & Adv. K.M.Sanu)

                                                     2 . The General Manager, 

                                                         Department of Banking Super Vision, 

                                                         Reserve Bank of India,

                                                         Thiruvananthapuram 695 033.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

The application for education loan submitted by the complainant  for his son is rejected by the South Indian Bank, Murickassery branch on the reason that there is  a credit report in CIBIL (Credit information Bureau Limited) showing that he is a defaulter of the first opposite party bank.  Getting information about this the complainant approached the opposite party's bank and at that time the bank manger said that it is not possible to remove the entry from the CIBIL site for three months.   Complainant further stated that, he is having no financial transaction with the first opposite party bank.  Even though the complainant approached so many times to the first opposite party bank to delete the entry the bank manager not turned up and at the same time, he mentally harassed the complainant in the presence of other customers.

 

                                                                                        (Cont.....2)

-2-

Thereafter for the same relief the complainant approached Honourable High Court of Kerala, and filed a written petition as WPC (27360/16).  As per the direction of the Honourable High Court  in the above write petition, the first opposite party removed the entry.

 

Complainant further contented that due to the entry in the CIBIL reports no banks sanctioned him educational loan, and hence he forced to  borrowed money from his neighbours that caused heavy financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service against the first opposite party, complainant filed this petition for getting the relief such as to direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost  to the complainant.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version denying all the allegation of the complainant.  In their version opposite party further contented that complainant has not availed any loan from the first opposite party bank.  Complainant and his son are having savings bank accounts only in the first opposite party bank.  On 25/03/15, the complainant approached the first opposite party and enquired about an education loan of Rs.4 lakhs.  Upon that the first opposite party  made an enquiry in the website of CIBIL, the purpose of loan and the amount has to be uploaded in the site, and found that the complainant has low credit rate and this was informed to the complainant.  Thereafter on 03/03/16 the complainant again approached the first opposite party for a loan of Rs. One lakh.  At that time also, the first opposite party made an enquiry in the CIBIL site.  In fact the complainant availed loans from other banks and even a suit was filed against him.  Hence the complainant had low credit rate as per CIBIL rating.   On the second time, a copy of CIBIL report was given to the complainant as requested by him.  It was due to the low credit rate the opposite party informed the complainant about its inability to grant loan.

 

Opposite parties further contented that in order to make search in the website of CIBIL the purpose of the loan and approximate loan amount are to be uploaded.  The opposite party had done that much only.  Any enquiry conducted in the website of CIBIL, would be recorded and shown in the column for “enquires”.  The first opposite party's name is figured only in that part of the site.   The first opposite party's name is not figured in the page and

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                        (Cont.....3)

-3-

column wherein the liabilities are shown.  Complainant misunderstood this “enquiry” column as “Liability” column and falsely filed this complaint.

 

Since the complainant had not availed any service of the first opposite party no question if any deficiency in service arises and hence the petition is not maintainable against the opposite parties.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P6.  Ext.P1 is the copy of bank pass book, Ext.P2 is the copy of    to whom so ever it may concern, Ext.P3 is the copy of application and copy of CIBIL report, Ext.P4 is the copy of Judgement in WPC 27360/16, Ext.P5 is the copy of letter to the bank manager, Ext.P6 is the copy of affidavit submitted by the bank before the High Court.

 

From the defence side manager of the first opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.R1 CIBIL report copy marked.

 

Heard both sides in detail.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsels for both the parties and gone through the evidence on record.  The complainant himself contested the matter.  The complainant argued that the first opposite party bank denied the educational loan on the ground that the complainant CIBIL score is very low.  Complainant further stated that complainant has no financial transaction with the first opposite party bank except two savings bank accounts.  The entry in the CIBIL report caused much financial loss and mental hardship to the complainant.  Complainant further argued that against the act of the opposite party and some others complainant preferred a writ petition before the Honourable High court of Kerala and as per the direction of the Honourable High court the CIBIL authority cancelled the entry in the CIBIL report.  The act of the opposite party bank in entering his details in CIBIL site adversely affected his  repulsion in  the

 

                                                                                        (Cont.....4)

-4-

public.  Hence the complainant filed this petition for getting compensation from the opposite party bank.

 

On the other hand the learned counsel pointing out to Ext.R1 CIBIL report argued that, nothing happened in this matter as alleged by the complainant.  The counsel stated that the complainant and his son are having savings bank account only with the first opposite party.  On 25/03/15 complainant approached opposite party bank and enquired about the education loan.  Upon that the first opposite party made an enquiry in the website of CIBIL, the purpose of loan and the amount has to be uploaded in the site and found that the complainant has low credit rate.  This was  informed to the complainant.   In fact the complainant availed loans from other banks and even a suit was filed against him one of the banks.  Due to that, the entry happened to be entered in the CIBIL site and it lowered the credit rate of the complainant.  In this case the opposite party had enquired the CIBIL rating of the complainant for sanctioning his education loan application only.  Any enquiry conducted in the CIBIL website would be recorded and shown in the column for “enquires”.  Here the first opposite party's name is not figured in the page of the CIBIL report, wherein the  liabilities are shown.  Complainant misunderstood the 'enquiry' column as liability column.  The learned counsel further argued that the opposite party acted only under the relevant status governing banking and finances.  If the party has a low CIBIL score, and there is a suit filed, accounts, no bank can grant loan.

 

For evaluating the points that arose in the argument of both parties, the Forum perused the evidence or record in detail and found that, the Ext.P4 order pronounced by the Honourable High Court in WPC No.27360/16, having no discussion about the role of the first opposite party, who was the second respondent in the writ petition.  More over the Honourable High Court in the above Judgement issued direction to the third and fourth respondents ie, The South Indian Bank and Credit Information Bureau India Ltd.  On perusing the Ext.R1 CIBIL report, it is very clear that, the opposite party bank enquired about the credit status of the complainant.  It does not mean that, the first opposite party has uploaded the details of the complainant so as to lowering his CIBIL score.  It is also noted that, the complainant has not produced any evidence to convince that due to the unlawful act of the first opposite party he caused much financial loss and mental agony.

                                                                                        (Cont.....5)

-5-

Under the above said circumstances, the Forum is of the considered view that, the complainant misunderstood the entries of the CIBIL report that, the first opposite party bank is behind the curtain.  Hence the actual scenario is described the bank in their reply version specifically and clearly.  From the above discussion, it is found that, the first opposite party bank acted bonafidely and based on the relevant statutes governing in the file of banking business and that cannot be considered as a deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint dismissed.  No order to cost.  

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the   30th day of October, 2018.

 

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                              SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

             SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -  P.K.Sabu

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              - Manu Thankappan

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  The copy of bank pass book,

Ext.P2            -  The copy of    to whom so ever it may concern

Ext.P2            -  The copy of application and copy of CIBIL report

Ext.P4          - The copy of Judgement in WPC 27360/16

Ext.P5          - The copy of letter to the bank manager

Ext.P6          -The copy of affidavit submitted by the bank before the High Court.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1        - The CIBIL report copy

                     Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT