STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Harvinder Singh Johal aged 27 years s/o Jagmohan Singh Johal, resident of House No.195, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh, UT.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.     The Branch Manager, Housing Bank Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.146, 147, 148, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh – 160042.

2.     Regd. Office Address : HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.

3.     Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., Hoechst House, 6th Floor, 193 Backbay Reclamation Nariman Point Mumbai-400021.

022-66384600, Info@CIBIL.COM

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties  

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,                    MEMBER

Argued by:   Appellant in person.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant is having saving bank account Nos.13141140004067 – Annexure C-1 & 13142470000118 – Annexure C-2 and also a credit card No.4346781010903235 – Annexure C-3 with HDFC Bank. It was stated that the brother of the complainant Mr.Gurbhinder Singh Johal was selected as a Civil Judge in Punjab Civil Services Judicial Branch on 24.3.2012. Delighted with joy, the complainant planned to gift a Skoda Rapid Car to him. The complainant contacted the State Bank of Patiala, District Court Branch, Sector 17, Chandigarh his present banker where he is having a joint account in his name and his brother, copy of which is Annexure C-9. It was further stated that the complainant applied for a car loan but the bank authorities straightway refused to offer any car loan. The complainant felt embarrassed and on enquiry, he came to know that his name was highlighted in CIBIL due to some financial default, as per CIBIL Report dated 29.3.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-10. As per that report, the word ‘Written Off’ was recorded, which means that the complainant was not eligible for any credit in future also. The complainant became a laughing stuff (stock?) among all other Advocates. It was further stated that the complainant, thereafter, obtained a copy of the CIBIL Report – Annexure C-12. As per the report, there was a default of Rs.66,048/- and the amount overdue was Rs.16,513/-. The said default was allegedly done in the year 2009 when the complainant was a student and was studying in MBA from University Business School at Panjab University, Chandigarh. It was further stated that on further queries, it was discovered that the name of the defaulter was Mr.Arvinder Singh, who was issued a credit card as he was working with Fullerton India as a Connection Manager and that card was issued on his official address. It was further stated that due to utter negligence and careless attitude of the Opposite Parties, a deserving chap with clean record was denied the bank loan and he alongwith his family members had to face humiliation, on account of comments, on the part of their colleagues and relatives. It was further stated that the plan of purchasing the car was postponed indefinitely as no bank was ready to advance any loan. The complainant claimed damages for defamation and humiliation, damages for the loss of business and cases by his lawyer relatives and also the litigation expenses. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their written version, it was stated by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that Annexure C-10 i.e. CIBIL Consumer Credit Information Report was not generated by them and there was no deficiency on their part. It was further stated that the HDFC Bank credit card information is sent as individual records to CIBIL by the first week of subsequent month. CIBIL refreshes information by the month end, on which the data is submitted. It was further stated that the card accounts of Mr.Arvinder Singh and Mr.Harvinder Singh Johal were reported as separate records to CIBIL. It was further stated that grant or non-grant of loan by any financial institution, is the prerogative of the said institute and there may be various circumstances governing the same including the income etc. of the applicant. It was further stated that the complainant be put to strict proof that the loan was applied for and not granted for the reasons, mentioned in the complaint.  It was further stated that, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    In its separate written version, Opposite Party No.3 stated that the complainant is not a consumer qua them and the complaint is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. It was further stated that CIBIL is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3, is engaged in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling, collating, collecting, processing and maintaining a data bank of credit information relating to both individuals and entities of all types, whether incorporated or not, for the use of banks, financial institutions etc., dealing with the distribution of credit and functions as a Credit Information Company. It was further stated that any dispute concerning Opposite Party No.3, and any borrower, can only be proceeded within terms of the provisions of the Act of 2005 and the settlement of dispute can be effected in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act aforesaid . It was further stated that the system of generating a Credit Information Report works on a few set of match rules. When the information in relation to the person seeking financial assistance is fed into the system then the best possible CIR is generated based on best possible match with data available. It was further stated that in response to the discrepancies stated in connection with complainant’s credit information, it was found that based on the data submitted to Opposite Party No.3 and their match rules, the Credit Information Report generated had information from another individual’s credit information mixed with the complainant’s due to similarity in identifying details. It was further stated that the aforesaid account now stands suppressed on the asking of HDFC Bank and now does not show in the CIR of the complainant. It was further stated that no request was submitted by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.3, in terms of Section 21 of CICRA Act of 2005 at any point of time for the alteration of his CIR.  It was further stated that, the answering Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                                          We have heard the appellant, in person, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The appellant submitted that he had savings bank accounts with the HDFC Bank i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and a credit card was issued to him which was valid from December 2010 to December 2013. In order to get car loan, he approached the State Bank of Patiala Sector 17, Chandigarh where he was having a joint account, Annexure C-9, with his brother, but the said Bank refused to sanction the loan, on the ground, that his name was highlighted in CIBIL as he committed some financial default on earlier occasion as per CIBIL report dated 29.3.2012 Annexure C-10, wherein, it was recorded as written off, meaning thereby he was not eligible for any credit in future. He further submitted that he obtained CIBIL report  Annexure C-12 which showed a default of Rs.66,048/- and amount overdue was 16,513/-. Surprisingly this default was done on 14.12.2009, when the complainant was a student pursuing his MBA having no source of income and was dependent upon his father for financial assistance.  He further submitted that on further enquiries, it was discovered that the name of the defaulter was Sh.Arvinder Singh who was issued a credit card as he was working with Fullerton India as a Connection Manager and that card was issued on his official address and not to him and due to the negligence of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, his name was put in the defaulter’s list and due to the same the  deserving chap with clean record was denied the bank loan, which caused a lot of humiliation, mental agony and physical harassment to him.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal,   is liable to be set aside.

10.                 From the perusal of Annexure C-10, i.e. the CIBIL report it is evident that the complainant committed a default of Rs.66,048/- in the year 2009 wherein it was recoded written off.  As per the written version, submitted by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, filed before the District Forum, the card accounts of Mr.Arvinder Singh as well as Mr. Harvinder Singh Johal were reported as separate records to the CIBIL and this fact is corroborated from the affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Bhatia, Principal Officer of the HDFC Bank Ltd.  Even the complainant has also failed to adduce any evidence to show that the information relating to Mr.Arvinder Singh was furnished  as information of Mr.Harvinder Singh Johal due to the fault of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

11.                 In the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.3 before the District Forum, it was categorically stated that on receipt of the instructions from the Bank, the discrepancy relating to the account of the complainant stood suppressed and now it did not show in the CIR of the complainant. Further the complainant was duly informed through e-mail (Annexure R-1) that if any information on his CIR was inaccurate or needed to be updated then a duly completed On-Line Dispute Form be filled up but there was no such evidence on record that the complainant ever filled up that form and lodged a complaint with Opposite Party No.3. Even otherwise, CIBIL is a statutory body constituted under the Credit Information Company Regulation Act, 2005 and, as such, the complainant had no privity of contract with it and, even if, there was some negligence, on the part of any official of OP No.3, while feeding the data of the complainant in the system, then instead of filing the complaint before the District Forum, the complainant was required to approach the CIBIL for his grievances as per Section 21 of the CICR Act. 

12.                 In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that there was no deficiency in rendering service  on the part of the Opposite Parties, as alleged by the complainant. The order of the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The order of the District Forum is, thus, liable to be upheld.

13.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

14.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                          Sd/-

01.01.2013                               [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                    Sd/-                                                          [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

[SUBHASH CHANDER JAIN]

                                                                                                MEMBER