CC No.281/2017                                                                                                                                   Date of filing:21.12.2017

                                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal:23.07.2020

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICTCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE DAY OF 23^rd July 2020

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.281/2017

PRESENT:

Sri.   Venkatasudarshan  D.R.  B.Com,LL.M.,   ….  PRESIDENT

Smt.  L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.                ….       MEMBER

Sri.  M.B. Seena, B.A., (Law), LL.B.           ….       MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS:

Sri.RaghavendraRao P.N.

S/o NageshwarRao,

32 years, R/at No.766,

1^st floor, 1^st cross,

1^st main, Shiva temple road,

Udayanagar, Bangalore-560016.

(Complainant by Sri. T.S. Venkatesh, Advocate)          

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

The Branch Manager,

M/s Syndicate Bank,

Palace Guttahalli branch,

(Opposite party by Sri.Jayavardhan B.R, Advocate)

= = = = = = = = = = = =                              

Written by Sri Venkatasudarshan D.R., President

              ******

//ORDERON MERITS//

This is a complaint filed under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the complainant Sri.Raghavendra Rao P.N. against The Branch Manager, M/s Syndicate Bank, praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages towards the loss of reputation, Goodwill and mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to direct the opposite party to pay cost and also such other relief as this Forum may deem fit.

2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant as per the complaint are that on the application submitted by the complainant the opposite party has sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and disbursed the same on 13.09.2014 under account No.044279400000043.  The complainant has repaid the entire loan on 27.11.2015. To show the same the statement of account is produced which is Annexure-A.

3. It is the case of the complainant that with an intention of having shelter, he approached Dewan Housing Finance Ltd., (DHFL) in the month of April-2016 for availing loan of Rs.12,00,000/-.  He submitted all the relevant papers but the DHFL rejected the loan proposal and provided a CIBIL report dated 02.05.2016 as per which the complainant was overdue in a sum of Rs.1,41,357/- towards the loan account No.044279400000043 and thus became a defaulter thus report is Annexure-B and thereby became ineligible for Home loan.

4.  It is the further case of the complainant that he was shocked by such rejection by DHFL and secured the CIBIL report on 07.09.2016 and approached the opposite party help desk, Bangalore.  The opposite party vide mail dated 28.09.2016 replied by confirming that account is closed.  The relevant portion reads “account 044279400000043 standing in the name of the complainant was closed on 27.11.2015 at present the balance outstanding account is zero as per our records” i.e., Annexure-D.

5. It is further case of the complainant on securing the said confirmation, he personally met Mr Y. Venugopal Senior Manager (IT) Syndicate Bank on 27.12.2016 who said that he would verify and do the needful.  Subsequently Sri. Y.Venugopal vide his e-mail dated 29.12.2016 rectified the CIBIL entry. The relevant portion of the said communication is “This is to confirm by opposite party that, complainant CIBIL Report has been rectified at CIBIL Bureau and request by opposite party to generate a fresh report and find the same in order”.  The complainant has applied for CIBIL report as per Annexure-E, F and G.

6. It is the case of the complainant that all this happened due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.  This has made the DHFL and other lenders to reject the loan of Rs.12,00,000/- which the complainant sought.  This has demolished the reputation of the complainant.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 16.01.2017 through RPAD, to which the opposite party had given a vague reply.  The negligence on the part of the opposite party which resulted in loss of reputation and good will of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, prays for allowing the complaint by directing the opponent to pay the complainant the amount as prayed.

7. After admitting the complaint the notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party entered appearance through an advocate and filed version.

8. In the version the opponent has not denied the averments in so far as the loan taken, repayment of the same by the complainant etc.  it is however contended that in view of the admission by the complainant himself in Para-7 of the complainant that Mr. Venugopal, whom the complainant met for the first time on 27.12.2016 had attended to the complaint of the complainant and replied through Email 29.12.2016 i.e. within 2-3 days stating that the entry in the CIBIL report has been corrected, it is clear that the Bank has acted diligently soon after the complainant was made.  Hence there is no deficiency of service and, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

9. When the case was posted for recording evidence, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence.  On behalf of the Opposite Party Smt.Nagaveni S Nayak, Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Palace Guttahallibranch, Bangalore has filed her affidavit evidence.  Both parties filed their written arguments.  Heard arguments of Advocate of complainant.

10. The points that arise for our determination are:-

(1) Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

11. Our findings on the above points are:-

Point No.1:-In the Negative

Point No.2:- Does not survive for consideration.

Point No.3:-As per the final order for the following

           :REASONS:

12. POINT NO.1:- This is a complaint filed under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the complainant Sri.Raghavendra Rao P.N. against The Branch Manager, M/s Syndicate Bank, praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages towards the loss of reputation, Goodwill and mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to direct the opposite party to pay cost and also such other relief as this Forum may deem fit.

13. It is the definite case of the complainant that he was sanctioned loan of Rs.1,50,000/- by the OP on 13.09.2014 and the said loan account was bearing No.044279400000043. It is the case of the complainant that he had repaid the said loan in its entirety by 27.11.2015 and obtained Statement of Account to that effect which is at Annexure-A a Xerox copy.  About this aspect there is no dispute by the Op.

14. It is the further case of the complainant that he had applied for Home Loan in the month of April 2016 by approaching Diwan Housing Financial Limited (DHFL) and sought for loan of Rs.12,00,000/- and submitted all the papers. But his application was rejected on the ground that the CIBIL Report dt.02.05.2016 showed that the Account No.044279400000043 in respect of the amount borrowed earlier from the OP-Bank was still showing overdue to the tune of Rs.1,41,357/-.  On seeing this the complainant was surprised and also he was shocked. This was because though the entire loan was cleared as long back as on 27.11.2015 itself about which there is no dispute the CIBIL Report was showing as though a sum of Rs.1,41,357/- is still unpaid and overdue.  Immediately, the complainant secured CIBIL Report the copy of which is produced at Annexure-C.

15. It is the case of the complainant that he approached the Help Desk of the Op and sought clarification.  A clarification was given vide message dt.28.09.2015 that the outstanding balance in the above said loan account number ending with 0043 was Zero.  Thus it is clear according to the complainant that the report shown by the CIBIL is not proper and it does not reflect the true position.  Therefore, the complainant personally met Sri.Y.Venugopal, Senior Manager (IT) Syndicate Bank on 27.12.2016 and complained.  The same was later corrected at CIBIL.  All these aspects have not been seriously disputed or denied by the OP.

16. Therefore now the question is whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the Op i.e., the Syndicate Bank which had advanced loan to the complainant which was later repaid admittedly.  The burden of proving this aspect is on the complainant. 

17. The expressions“ deficiency in service” has been defined in the Consumer Protection Act as under.

“deficiency”, means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to e maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

In order to appreciate this aspect it is necessary to know about the CIBIL and its function.

18. The CIBIL is the abbreviated form of “Credit, Information, Bureau, (India Limited)” It is a Credit Bureau or Credit Information Company. This Company is engaged in maintaining the records of all the Credit related activities of companies as well as individuals including credit cards and loans.  The registered member Bank and several other Financial Institutions periodically submit the information about the borrowers and their loan status to the CIBIL.  Based on such information and record provided by these institutions the CIBIL issue what is called Credit Information Report (CIR) as well as credit score.  Thus it is a Credit Information Data Base and thus does not take part in any kind of lending decisions.  It provides data to the Banks and such other lenders to enable them to filter the loan application as quickly and efficiently possible.  Thus we can say that the CIBIL Report is based on the information given to the said Company by the lending institutions including Banks about the loan account of its customers to whom Loan is advanced.  Normally the loans which are so advanced are repayable in monthly installments.  Therefore necessarily it is the duty of the lending institutions in this case the OP-Bank to send the necessary information to the CIBIL every month about the status of the borrower as reflected in the loan account maintained with them. If we examine the facts of the case on hand in this background, we could find that though admittedly the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount which he borrowed from the OP-Bank on 13.09.2014 by 27.11.2015 itself the same did not find place in the CIBIL report. That means there was obviously no prompt reporting of the said repayment to the CIBIL by the opponent bank. It is the complainant who on coming to know of defective entry in the CIBIL report moved the concerned on his own and got it rectified on 27.12.2016.  This would clearly mean that though the loan was repaid in the Month of November-2015 itself, no intimation almost for 10 months was given by the OP to CIBIL.  This conduct of the OP bank is the reflection of the bad way in which it treats its customers. The same interest or eagerness that the banks and financial institutions show in recovery of loan amount will not be shown in safeguarding the interest of such borrowers who make repayment promptly and clear the loan like the complainant in this case. The OP bank should have been prompt in reporting the said repayment to CIBIL and have the same updated in the interest of the complainant. That has not been done. No reason or explanation offered for not having done that promptly. This is nothing shorter than carelessness or negligence on the part of the OP-Bank.  Knowing fully well the importance of the Credit Information Report and worth of the score given in the said report by the CIBIL with reference to the borrower the OP-Bank had kept quite without intimating the clearance of the loan by the complainant. That too for more than 10 months. This in our considered view is nothing shorter than negligence or carelessness on the part of the OP bank. This obviously amounts to an imperfection or a shortcoming or inadequacy in the performance by the OP Bank and that has resulted in a serious fault which consequently amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op-Bank.

19. The defense taken by the Op is that though the CIBILReport did not show the correct position which resulted in rejection of the application submitted by the complainant for sanction of Home Loan to DHFL, the Op contends that the complainant could have produced NOC issued by the OP-Bank to DHFL which would have been accepted by the DHFL, if really the averments of the complaint that the complainant had approached the DHFL for Home Loan is true.  This type of contention taken by the OP-Bank in our considered view does not befit the status of Nationalized Bank.   This is because irrespective of the fact whether the complainant had approached DHFL or not, whether he had produced or not produced NOC it is not the concern of the OP bank. The only question is whether the OP bank did its part of job of making prompt report to CIBIL about the total repayment of the loan amount made by the complainant.  The answer is “NO”. As already stated above when a prompt repayment has been made by the complainant, it was the duty of OP bank to safeguard the interest of complainant by furnishing the said information immediately to CIBIL and have it recorded. That would inure to the benefit of the complainant and he can make use of the same whenever he needs. Having not done this part of the job which the Bank was expected to do, it can be said that defense taken that NOC could have been produced to DHFL by the complainant is baseless.  Thus looking from any angle it can be stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank.  Accordingly we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative and in favor of the complainant.

20. POINT No.2:- The complainant has sought for a direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages towards the loss of reputation good will mental agony undergone by him.  To substantiate this aspect except the oral evidence in the form of an affidavit, the complainant has not produced any documentary or any other evidence.  The complainant has not even chosen to produce any document to show that he had applied for Home Loan of Rs.12,00,000/- to DHFL and same was rejected on the ground of poor score in the Credit Information Report issued by CIBIL which affected his reputation or good will no explanation has been given by the complainant for not producing those documents.  In addition to this, there is no other evidence worth the name to show that the complainant is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed in the complaint towards damages. 

21. This does not however mean that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The fact remains that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. It has a failed in discharging its onerous duty of intimating the CIBIL about the act of the complainant in discharging the entire loan on 27.11.2015.  For this fault committed by the Bank, the Bank has to be saddled with liability.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that the CIBIL Report pertaining to the loan account to the complainant was set right only on account of the efforts made personally by the complainant and at his cost, we deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation.

22. Prior to be filing of this complaint, the complainant got issued a Legal Notice on 16.01.2017 for which the OP sent reply disowning its liability.  This shows that the OP being a Nationalized Bank was not graceful enough to accept its mistake and go forward to compensate the complaint.  Instead by sending such reply the complainant was driven to file this complaint in the Year 2017 by engaging the services of an advocate and fought out this litigation in order to take the same to a logical end.  Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs.5,000/- being the cost of litigation.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.2 partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following.

  The complaint filed by the complainant Sri.RaghavendraRao P.N. against Syndicate Bank u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is allowed in part as under.

  The complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only) from OP Bank as damages for loss and mental agony undergone by the complainant.

  The OP Bank shall make payment of the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the OP Bank shall pay interest on the said amount together with interest at 12% p.a. payable from the date of the complaint till the date of actual realization.

The complainant is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) from the OP Bank towards cost of this litigation. 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the open Forum on 23^rd day of JULY 2020)                                            

(M.B. Seena)       (L.Mamatha)    (D.R. Venkatasudarshan)                           Member                   Member                      President 

Witness examined for the complainant side:

1. Shri. Raghavendra Rao P.N., who being the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Smt. Nagaveni S Nayak, Senior Branch Manager of the opposite partyBank has filed her affidavit on behalf of opposite party.

List of documents filed by the complainant:

1. Copy of Statement of account.
2. Copy of CIBIL report dated 02.05.2016.
3. Copy of CIBIL report dated 07.09.2016.
4. Copy of e-mail dated 28.09.2016.
5. Copy of Visitor slip.
6. Copy of e-mail dated 29.12.2016.
7. Copy of e-mail dated 03.01.2017.
8. Office copy of legal notice dated 16.01.2017.
9. Original copy of postal receipt and

acknowledgement card.

10.Office copy of reply notice dated 06.02.2017.

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:

• NIL -

(M.B. Seena)       (L.Mamatha)    (D.R. Venkatasudarshan)                           Member                      Member                           President