Date of Filing: 16.09.2014

      Date of Order: 21.05.2016

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 21^th DAY OF MAY 2016

PRESENT

SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER

SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.), LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1628/2014

Dr.Lavanya S,

D/o Siddalingappa,

Aged 29 years,

R/at : No.27.

Rajarajeswari Nilay,

1^st Main Raod,

Vijayanagar Club,

Bangalore-560 040.                                Complainant

V/s

1. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited,

   2^nd Floor,  Prestige Corniche, No.62,

   Richmond Road,

   Bangalore 560 025.

2. Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited,

Hoechst House, 6^th Floor, 193,

Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

Represented by its Director.

3. HDFC Bank Limited,

Head Office at 8/24,

Salco Centre, Richmond Road,

Opposite Baldwin Girls High School,

Bangalore 560 025.                           Opposite Parties     

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT

1.     This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for direction to the O.Ps to delete the mobile No.9414252671 wrongfully entered in the personal contact information of the complainant’s CIBIL consumer information report and O.P.No.1 directed to pay compensation of Rs.19,10,470/- for wrongful losses caused to the complainant and grant such other reliefs deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the complaint.

2.   The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is a doctor by profession and running a dental clinic named as M/s. Ivory Dental Clinic, Bangalore.  For expansion of her clinic was looking for professional or personal loan. In the month of August 2014, the complainant applied for loan in HDFC Bank Ltd. Further the complainant also approached Bajaj Finance Ltd and Standard Chartered Bank for loan.  The complainant was interested in the HDFC Bank Ltd and followed her loan application with the HDFC Bank. On repeated enquiries made by the complainant informed her that loan cannot be sanctioned as she had borrowed a sum of Rs.17,49,236/- from TATA Capital Housing Finance Ltd on 20.2.2014.  Further complainant was shocked that she had borrowed a sum of Rs.17,49,236/- from the O.P.No.1. Further the complainant verified the HDFC bank Ltd  and the said loan details with the O.P.No.1 was updated in her CIBIL Consumer Information Report issued by the O.P.No.2.  The complainant applied for Credit Information Report (CIR) with the O.P.No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.470/- and download her CIR from the O.P.No.2 website and the email confirmation received by the complainant. The complainant submitted that on 20.2.2014 the CIBIL had updated the report that complainant had jointly borrowed a housing loan amount of Rs.17.49,236/-. The complainant verified on Google and obtained the details of the O.P.No.1 and wrongful entry made by the O.P.No.1 with the O.P.No.2 on 14.02.2014. The complainant had submitted the documents including PAN card to the representative of the Tata Capital Finance.  The O.P.No.1 had breached the legal standard and misused the complainant’s PAN Card number and had recorded the wrong entry with the O.P.No.2.  The complainant alleges that the facts and circumstances shows that O.P.No.1 done this willfully.  Though O.P No.1 replied to the complainant  about wrongful entry made by them with the O.P.No2  was deleted but nevertheless the contact number of the person who actually borrowed the housing loan from O.P.No.1 still remains in the personal details of the complainant’s CIBIL Consumer Information Report.  The complainant informed the O.P.No.1 to remove the wrong mobile number as it does not belong to her.  The O.P.No.1 had escaped from their obligation by pointing towards the O.P.No.2 .  The O.P.No.2 states that they cannot remove the entry made in the CIBIL report. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the O.Ps. Hence this complaint.

3.      Upon issuance of notice, O.P.No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their version. However O.P.No.3 remained absent and consequently proceeded to place exparte.

4.     In the version of O.P.No.1 contended that the complainant filed the complaint by suppressing the material facts and complainant not come to Forum with clean hands the O.P.No.1 submits that they have already complied the first prayer sought in the complaint. The O.P.No.1 contended that they being non-banking finance company reserved under Companies Act 1956 functioning  under the Companies Act 1956. The complainant approached the Tata Capital Financial Service Ltd the sister concern of the O.P.No.1 seeking consumer durable loans which was sanctioned in February 2014, the loan was repaid in full in the month of August 2014.  Pursuant to closure of the loan on 10^th August 2014 through E-mail complainant informed the O.P.No.1 she had approached the financial institution where upon her CIBIL record reflected an entry in the nature of a home loan taken from the O.P.No.1 and which was in delinquency. The O.P.No.1 took up the issue with utmost priority and upon investigation it was found that the customer identification number of the complainant which was generated during her customer durable loan had been inadvertently and due to over sight entered as co-applicant along with one Mr.Shamlal who had availed a home loan from the 1^st O.P. Subsequently 1^st O.P. replied to the complainant on 11^th August 2014 entry was made inadvertently and that the same has been rectified on that day. Thereafter O.P.No.1 received another E-mail from the complainant on 18^th August 2014 intimating that the mobile number of one Shamalal was still reflects in her CIBIL records and immediately O.P.No1 correspondent with the CIBIL and asked the CIBIL to have the same to be rectified.  On 23.08.2014 OP.No.2 reacted that the request for the rectification cannot be carried out by them as the disputed number had been updated by some other financial institution.  Ultimately, after much follow ups by O.P.No.1 by CIBIL and the CIBIL sent an email dated 3.9.2014 stating that the disputed number was not updated by 1^st party instead it was updated by  HDFC bank.  In the complainant’s record. The information was promptly shared with the complainant, requesting her to take up the matter with the HDFC bank since as per CIBIL it was who had updated the record with the disputed number.  On other grounds O.P.No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     In the version of O.P.No.2 contended that complainant is not a consumer and there is no privity of contract existing between this O.P. and the complainant.  Hence contended that the complaint is not maintainable against this answering O.P.  Further O.P. No.2 also contended this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The complaint as framed is wholly misconceived, untenable and not maintainable without any cause of action and jurisdiction and deserves to the rejected outright at the very threshold.  The O.P.No.2 contended that they have no unilateral right to carry out any correction deletions and modification in the credit information of any person unless such correction etc has been certified correct by the concerned credit institution.  The O.P.No.2 filed thesis of objections to deny the deficiency in service on their part.  On other grounds averred in the version of O.P.No.2 prays for dismissal of complaint.

6.     To substantiate the above case, the complainant has filed the affidavit evidence along with documents.  We have heard the arguments.

7.     On the basis of pleadings of the complainant, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-

                                (A)    Whether the complainant has proved

                        deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

(B)    Whether the complainant is entitled to the

         relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)    What order?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) and (B) :  Affirmative.

POINT (C):  As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT  No (A) and B:-

9.     On perusing the pleading of the parties it is an undisputed fact that though complainant not obtained any housing loan in question it is reflected in the CIBIL records and hence alleging deficiency in service of the O.Ps filed this complaint.

10.   Per-contra O.P.No.1 contended that, one Shyamlal who obtained the loan inadvertently, the complaint’s name tagged to the CIBIL records and subsequently it has been rectified. But the grievance of the complainant is that the mobile number of the housing loan obtained by one Shyamlal was reflecting in the records with the complainant’s name and hence the complainant once again correspondent with the O.P.No.1. In turn O.P.No.1 correspondent with the O.P.No.2. But the O.P.No.2 washed away its hands by saying that it is the mistake of the HDFC bank and they have to rectify it. 

11.     However, HDFC bank inspite of service of notice did not appear before the FORUM to answer the claim made by the complainant. 

12.   It is worth to note that, when loan in question is not obtained by the complainant what for her name is to be tagged with the mobile number of the one who obtained the housing loan in the CIBIL records. Obviously, it will hurdles the transactions of the complainant. 

13.     On perusal of the several correspondence made with the O.Ps. O.P.No.1 admitted that, subsequently 1^st O.P. replied to the complainant on 11^th August 2014  entry was made inadvertently and that the same has been rectifying on that day. Thereafter O.P.No.1 received another email from the complainant on 18^th August 2014 intimating that the mobile number of one Shyamlal was still reflects in her CIBIL records and immediately O.P.No1 correspondent with the CIBIL and asked the CIBIL to have the same to be rectified. For all these happenings is due to reason of inadvertently tagging the name of the complainant with the borrower of housing loan and it shows negligence attitude of the O.P.No.1 and it becomes route cause of all the things and the complainant suffered for want of  no fault from her side.  However, the HDFC bank i.e. O.P. No.3 did not come forward to assist the complainant in order to remove the mobile number of the Shyamlal tagged with the name of the complainant in the CIBIL record and also  failed to come before the Forum to answer the claim made by the complainant.  Hence, the allegations made against O.P.No.3 remained unchallenged one and in the back drop of  facts and circumstances, the O.P.No.3 is also held liable for the deficiency in service along with O.P.No.1. Furthermore, the act of the O.P.No.1 and 3 made the complainant to wander from pillar to post. However the complainant did not place any cogent evidence in order to establish the wrongful losses sustained by her. Under the circumstances, we deem it just and proper to direct the O.P.No.1 and 3 to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant it will meets the ends of justice. However, there is no privity of contract and cause of action accrued between the complainant and the O.P.No.2.  Hence, the complaint against O.P.No.2 is hereby dismissed.  Furthermore, the complainant proved deficiency in service on part of O.P.No.1 and 3. Accordingly we answered these points in the affirmative.

POINT (C):

14.   Based on the findings given on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part with cost.

2. The O.P. 1 and 3 are hereby directed to take all steps to delete the mobile NO.9414252671 wrongfully entered in the personal contact information of the complainant CIBIL consumer information report. 

3. Further O.P.No.1 and 3 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant.

4.  The complaint against O.P.No.2 is hereby dismissed.

5. Further O.P. 1 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

6. The O.P No.1 and 3 are hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

7. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 21^th Day of May 2016)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*Rak