Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The fact of the instant case in a nutshell is that Mr. Dipankar Guha Roy the complainant of this case took a business loan of Rs.300000 (Rs. Three Lakhs Only) from the Central Bank of India, Coochbehar Bazar Branch on 04.01.2012. He was paying EMI for the said loan regularly.
After some time his business was running dull and he could not pay his EMI to the OP 1bank. So he had to go for a one time settlement with the OP1 bank for which he deposited Rs. 72000/- ( Rs. Seventy two thousand )to the OP 1 bank for closure of his loan.
Thereafter OP1 bank issued NOC in favour of the complainant. But after a lapse of one year and a half from the full payment of the loan amount he noticed that his account was not closed and his name was not deleted from the Trans Union CIBIL. So he sent a legal notice to the OP1 bank stating his grievance. OP 1 bank received the notice and gave a reasonable explanation as to why they could not fulfill the demand of the complainant.
Thereafter, not being satisfied with answer given by the OP 1 bank he filed this instant case before this commission for redressal of his grievance. Summons were served upon the OPs but they did not turn up before this commission to contest the case. So the case was heard exparte against the OPI & OP II. He prayed to the Commission for a direction to the OPs to arrange for deletion of his account and name from the Trans Union CIBIL and to pay Rs.50000/- for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment, Rs.50000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.15000/- for litigation cost.
Points for Consideration
- Is the complainant a consumer under CP Act 2019?
- Is the instant case maintainable ?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief?
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for Convenience & brevity of discussion. Complainant, Mr. Dipankar Guha Roy took a business loan amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-( Rs. Three Lakh only) from OP 1 bank on 05.01.2012 and after paying several EMIs he had to go for one time settlement with the OP1 bank for deterioration of his business for which he deposited Rs.72000/- to the OP1 bank on 06.03.2019.Thereafter OP1 bank issued NO DUES CERTIFICATE in favour of the complainant on 23.04.2019. But after a lapse of one and a half years his loan account was not closed and deleted from Trans Union CIBIL. Thus he sent a legal notice to the OP1 bank for closing his loan account and deleting the same from Trans Union CIBIL. The OP 1 bank received the notice with a note which states as “CIBIL data is not maintained by the bank. We have closed the account under compromise settlement and provided NOC to the customer. It will take time to update in CIBIL as the loan was NPA and closed under compromise settlement.”
Despite the repayment of the loan, other than issuing No due certificate the OP bank did not write off the name of the Complainant from CIBIL list.
The settled position of law and the guideline of Reserve Bank of India are that prompt action from the banks to update CIBIL record should be taken. Even if the amount are written off, it should be mentioned as ‘’resolved’’ so that the credit history of the customer is not tarnished and he may avail other advances from the banks. In the present case the OP bank seems to have not discharged its duty and obligation properly.
The Complainant proved the most relevant documents namely final payment receipt dt. 06.03.2019, No due certificate dt.23.04.2019, loan history dt.23.04.2019, trans union CIBIL dt.13.08.2019 and legal notice dt.24.08.2020 in his favour.
The OP could not discard those documents by any cogent and succinct evidence in as much as the case was heard exparte against OPs.
The documents proved by the Complainant clearly established that the inaction on the part of the Op is nothing but an act of deficiency in service towards the duty and obligation towards the complainant / customer.
The Ld counsel for the Complainant relied upon a decision being reported in Vol IV(218) CPJ 392(NC) wherein it was decided that even if amounts are written off it should be mentioned as ‘’resolved’’ so that credit history of customer is not tarnished and he may avail further advances from banks.RBI expects prompt action from banks to upolate CIBIL records. Once loan agreement is terminated by Bank, it is duty of the bank to inform CIBIL that the holder of loan account is not a defaulter and he has complied with all terms of loan agreement. Deficiency proved.
The case law squarely applies here.
The inaction on the part of the OP bank tantamount to deficiency in service.
Having assessed the entire pleading and evidence in record vis-à-vis, the silence of the OP leads the court to come to the finding that the case of the complainant stands proved up to the hilt.
In the result the case of the complainant succeeds exparte.
However the OP seems to have already issued a no demand / no due certificate to the Complainant. In that case the amount of compensation should be reduced to some extent.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Case No. CC/27/2020 be and the same is allowed exparte without cost. OP1 bank is directed to arrange for deletion of Complainant’s name from CIBIL/ Consumer CIR as over dues within one month from the date of passing the order. The OP1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of passing this order failing which the decretal amount shall carry an interest @ 6% P.A from the date of passing this order till its realization.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the OP with free of cost. The copy of the Judgement be uploaded in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
