Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant Sri Kiran Gope took loan of KCC (Kishan Credit card) amounting to Rs. 45,000/- from the OP i.e. State Bank of India, Ruidanga Branch, Cooch Behar in the year, 2010 vide loan A/C No.37980848723. After taking this loan Complainant started his cultivation and had paid monthly loan instalment properly. Agriculture had deteriorated gradually due to unavoidable circumstances. So he had to go for a one time settlement with OP bank for which he deposited Rs.10,000/- on 22.07.2022 to the OP for closure of his loan. Thereafter OP bank issued no dues certificate in favour of the Complainant on 22.07.2022 (Annexure-A being the photocopy of the NOC issued by the OP). But after lapse of one year 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 made several contacts with the OP bank. But they have not taken any positive steps. Thereafter, Complainant went to another bank for starting a new business but he noticed that his name was not deleted from Trans Union CIBIL report. Again Complainant approached the OP bank with an earnest request for deleting the Complainant’s name but the OP bank demanded an excess fee of Rs.28,053/- for deleting the Complainant’s name from the Trans Union CIBIL report and then he paid the amount of Rs.28,053/- (Annexure-B being the photocopy of pay slip issued by OP dated 01.12.2022). He sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate Sri Jibankrishna Chakborty on 07.02.23 to the Branch Manager of the OP bank to delete Complainant’s name in the Trans Union CIBIL report (Annexure-C is the photocopy of legal notice dated 07.02.23). The OP bank received the legal notice but no positive response was received by the Complainant from the O.P’s end till date. On 03.03.23 the OP Bank sent a letter to the Complainant bearing Ref. No.BM/2022-23/60 replying to the legal notice of the Complainant dated 07.02.23 where complainant stated his grievance and wherein the OP bank rejected the request of the Complaint for rectifying his CIBIL score with false and flimsy ground and utterly devoid of any reason (Annexure-D1 & D2 being the photocopy of letter sent by OP bank dated 03.03.23). Thereafter, Complainant filed a written complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar on 19.05.23 for rapid solving of his problem (Annexure-E is the photocopy of written complaint filed by CA & FBP, Cooch Behar dated 19.05.23). The date of the tripartite mediation was fixed on 22.06.23 by the Assistant Director, CA & FBP (Annexure F1 & F2 being the photocopy of note sheet of CA & FBP dated 22.06.23). The said tripartite mediation was miserably failed due to “Irreconcilability of views between the Complainant and the Opposite party”.
Thereafter, not being satisfied with answer given by OP bank before the CA & FBP he filed this instant case before this Commission for redressal of his grievance. Summons were served upon the OP but he did not turn up before this Commission to contest the case. So, the case was heard ex-parte against the OP bank.
The cause of action of the present case arose firstly when the Complain in the year 2010 obtained a KCC (Kishan Credit Card) loan amounting to Rs.45,000/- from the OP and when he was unable to continue the loan account and approached the OP for closing the account and on 22.07.2022 when the Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as one time settlement amount and received the NOC and on 07.02.23 when the Complainant served a legal notice to the OP bank and on 03.03.23 when the OP bank sent a letter to the OP rejecting the request of the Complainant to rectify his CIBIL score and on 19.05.23 when the Complainant filed a written complaint before CA & FBP, Cooch Behar and on various occasions and is a continuing cause of action till the date of redressal of the grievance of the Complainant. He prayed to the Commission for a direction to the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the unfair trade practice and also to pay Rs.5 Lakhs for deficiency in service and further to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment and Rs.15,000/- for litigation cost.
Points for consideration
- Is the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. 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 and brevity of discussion. The Complainant Mr. Kiran Gope took a KCC loan amounting to Rs.45,000/- from the OP i.e. State Bank Of India in the year, 2010 and after paying several EMI’s he had to go for one time settlement with the OP bank for deterioration in cultivation for which he took loan. After receiving the one time settlement amount i.e. Rs.10,000/- for the said loan account and moreover issuing no dues certificate by the OP bank in favour of the Complainant he went to another bank for a loan to start a new business. Despite paying the one time settlement amount, OP did not delete the Complainant’s name from Trans Union CIBIL report. The OP bank demanded an excess fee of Rs.28,053/- and accordingly, on 01.12.2022 Complainant paid Rs.28,053/-.
After lapse of 15 days the Complainant again approached the OP bank to enquire about his CIBIL score but to his utter surprise the OP bank demanded more money from the Complainant and loan account was not closed and his name was not deleted from Trans Union CIBIL. Thus he sent a legal notice to the OP bank for closing his loan account and deleting the same from Trans Union CIBIL. The OP bank received the notice with a note which states as. “Loan settled through compromise settlement will not be entertained for rectification of CIBIL”. Despite the repayment of the loan, other than issuing no dues 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 issued no dues certificate dated 22.07.2022 as Complainant deposited one time settlement of Rs.10,000/-. On 01.12.2022 Complainant paid Rs.28,053/- and legal notice dated 07.02.23 in his favour.
The OP could not discard those documents by any cogent and succinct evidence in as much as the case was heard ex-parte against the OP.
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.
Ld. Counsel for the Complainant relied upon a decision being reported in Vol-IV(2018) 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 bank. RBI expects prompt action from banks to update 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 proved.
The inaction on the part of the OP bank tantamounts to deficiency in service.
After assessing the oral and documentary evidence of the Complainant it stands proved that 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 ex-parte.
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 complaint case No.CC/71/2023 be and the same is allowed ex-parte with cost.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the unfair trade practice and OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceeding within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing this order failing which the decreetal amount shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing this order till realization.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available on www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
