1.       The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainant against Opposite Parties (OPs) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OPs to:-

(i)      Pay a sum of Rs. 16,56,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant;

(ii)     Pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of this complaint

Or

(iii)    Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

2.       Notice was issued to the OP(s) 02.07.2021.  Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given below.

3.       It is averred/stated in the Complaint that: -

(i)      Despite settling a Project Loan of Rs. 10 Crores through a one-time payment of Rs. 3.56 Crores, OP-1 persisted in demanding an additional sum of Rs. 14.43 lakhs post-settlement. The complainant duly complied by making the additional payment, resulting in a total payment of Rs. 12.14 Crores. Following this, OP-1 issued a letter confirming the absence of any outstanding dues on the part of the complainant. That in accordance with RBI Circular no. DBOD No. BC/CIS/47/20.16.002/94, all Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions are mandated to adhere to specific reporting requirements to RBI. These entities are obligated to submit information on suit filed borrower accounts classified as doubtful and loss accounts with outstanding amounts (both funded and non-funded) aggregating Rs. 1 Crore and above. This submission is required on a quarterly basis. The received list of defaulters from banks/FIs is then circulated in a consolidated form by RBI to them on a yearly basis. It is the responsibility of the banks/FIs to ensure the accuracy of the data furnished to RBI, and RBI holds no liability for any discrepancies or inaccuracies in this regard.

(ii)     As of 31.03.2017, the complainant had no pending dues and OP-1 issued a No Due Letter on 13.01.2017, reiterating the absence of further dues from the complainant. Despite this, OP-1 inaccurately reported an outstanding amount of Rs.4.17 crores in the RBI's list of defaulters. This misreporting has led to severe hardships, significant financial losses, and reputational damage to the complainant and its directors. The complainant's directors made numerous attempts to rectify the situation, including through multiple representations via emails, phone calls, and personal visits to the OP-1. But OP-1’s negligence persisted, and the complainant's name remained on the defaulters list, causing ongoing damage. This not only adversely affected the complainant's business dealings, such as obtaining a Bank Guarantee but also tainted its image in the eyes of other banks assessing creditworthiness. OP-1’s continuous reporting of erroneous information amounts to unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service.

(iii)    The complainant had secured an Exclusive Contract from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) for advertising rights and concessions at Bhopal Airport. But, due to the unwarranted inclusion of the complainant's name in the defaulters list, the complainant encountered obstacles in fulfilling its obligations, leading to the cancellation of the contract, forfeiture of the EMI, and debarring from future AAI tenders. This detrimental impact can be attributed directly to OP-1's failure to rectify its reporting inaccuracies. The complainant's repeated efforts to rectify the situation went unanswered, even when HDFC Bank expressed its inability to process the Bank Guarantee due to the complainant's inclusion in the defaulters list.

(iv)    A complaint was lodged with the Banking Ombudsman, who found the OP-1 at fault and ordered it to pay a penalty of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant. Subsequently, OP-1 admitted its guilt by paying the penalty, thereby acknowledging its error. The complainant suffered loss of lucrative advertising license due to OP-1's negligence. The complainant further asserts that it could have earned substantial revenue and turnover over a 10-year period. However, the inability to secure a Bank Guarantee ultimately led to the cancellation of the contract and significant financial losses. The complainant has suffered substantial losses due to OP-1's deficient service and negligence, which include turnover and revenue losses of Rs. 73.11 Crores and Rs. 9.54 Crores, respectively, coupled with other adverse consequences such as lost business opportunities and reputational damage. This grave impact is solely attributed to the deficiency in service and the incorrect reporting of the complainant's credit standing to OP-2's website www.suit.cibil.com.

(v)     The cause of action arose on 31.12.2016, when the complainant's name was wrongly included in the RBI defaulters list despite full settlement of dues; 06.03.2018, when the complainant requested its removal; 24.04.2019, when AAI Bhopal cancelled the contract due to the complainant's appearance on the defaulters list; 28.11.2019, when the complainant issued a legal notice for compensation; and the continuing instances of the complainant's name appearing on the defaulters list beyond 30.11.2020. The cause of action remains ongoing due to the ongoing repercussions of the OP-1's negligence, adversely affecting the complainant and persisting as a detriment to its reputation and business opportunities.

4.       The OP-1, OP-3 and OP-4 in their written statement/reply stated that: -

(i)      A recovery suit was initiated concerning the complainant's account with the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chennai, as evidenced by case OA 737/2015. OP-1 approved a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal for the complainant's borrowing account. The OTS was sanctioned on 31.05.2016, involving a sum of Rs. 3.56 Crore, which was remitted in installments until 30.11.2016. As per the OTS stipulations, the complainant was obliged to remit delayed interest of Rs. 14.43 Lakhs, leading to the issuance of a "No Dues" certificate on 13.01.2017 upon satisfaction of the payment terms. Concurrently, the DRT issued an order on 05.12.2016 demanding the complainant to pay an additional amount of Rs. 4,65,39,715/- along with interest. On 20.03.2017, OP-1 communicated the permanent closure of the complainant's account, effective since 13.01.2017. Delays in updating Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) records were attributable to procedural limitations. Remedial measures were undertaken within the bank to rectify the complainant's account status subsequent to inter-communication and discussions.

(ii)     The complainant's CIBIL report demonstrated utilization of credit facilities from other financial institutions subsequent to the closure of the account with OP-1. Pursuant to a directive from the Banking Ombudsman, OP-1 compensated the complainant with Rs. 10,000, thus adhering to the directive. The OPs emphasize the complainant's omission of pertinent details, including the release of security documents to HDFC Bank post the closure of the complainant's account with OP-1. Furthermore, the termination of the contract with the Airport Authority of India (AAI) was a result of the complainant's default actions, not attributable to any actions or inaction of the OPs.

(iii)    OP-1 took proactive steps to engage with CIBIL and rectify the status of the Complainant's account, aligning it with the settlement achieved under the OTS. As a result, the Complainant's standing was reinstated. However, despite the restoration of their status, the Complainant chose not to pursue available avenues to address their alleged inclusion in CIBIL's defaulters list. Opportunities existed for complainant to rectify this situation through CIBIL's established procedures, yet remained unutilized. OPs assert that the inclusion of the Complainant's name in the defaulters list did not hinder their contractual arrangement with AAI. This assertion is substantiated by the issuance of a Letter of Intent for advertising rights, even while the Complainant's name was allegedly on the defaulters list. The current legal action taken by the Complainant seems to be a strategic maneuver aimed at diverting attention from their own defaults, which ultimately led to the termination of their agreement with AAI.

(iv)    OP-1 formally notified CIBIL to rectify the defaulters list before a series of events unfolded, including account closure, the submission of a No Dues Certificate, the filing of a satisfaction memo, and the return of title deeds. This timeline underscores that the Complainant had sufficient time to address the matter. OPs elaborate on the underlying rationale behind RBI's publication of defaulters lists, emphasizing its role in enhancing transparency and facilitating informed lending decisions by banks and financial institutions based on comprehensive information. That HDFC Bank, subsequent to the closure of the Complainant's account with the OP (bank), initiated an inquiry in accordance with RBI guidelines. This inquiry led to the direct retrieval of original title deeds by HDFC Bank from the OP-1. The OPs underscore the Complainant's omission of critical financial details, including their account balance with HDFC Bank and other institutions. These details are pivotal in assessing creditworthiness and determining the feasibility of extending various financial facilities.

(v)     The Complainant's grievance revolves around AAI's debarment letter dated 24.4.2019, arising from the termination of the LOIA and forfeiture of EMD by AAI on 15.10.2018. This outcome is an inherent consequence of the contractual terms and is asserted to be time-barred, falling beyond the limitation period. The issue of the Bank Guarantee pertains to the Complainant and HDFC Bank. The Complainant's account with the OP was terminated earlier, with the title deeds being transferred to HDFC Bank. The email from HDFC Bank dated 05.05.2018 neither rejected nor declined the Bank Guarantee. Instead, it sought clarification from the Complainant, which remained unanswered. No substantiating evidence supports the assertion that the Complainant's three-year debarment from AAI tenders resulted from actions or inaction on the part of the OPs. Complainant had previously been awarded a contract by AAI in 2018.

(vi)    The terms of credit facilities extended were in alignment with the stipulations of the OTS sanction. Any payment delays incurred were subject to applicable delayed payment interest. The collection and dissemination of defaulters' details adhered to the guidelines set forth by the RBI. The delay in reporting to CIBIL had been previously addressed through the intervention of the Banking Ombudsman, resulting in compensation to the Complainant, which was accepted without challenge. OPs maintain that the allegations levelled against them lack a solid foundation and are characterized as misconceived, frivolous, and bereft of merit. OPs contend that their actions were aligned with contractual terms and regulatory directives.

5.       The OP-2 in their written statement/reply stated that: -

(i)      The Complainant has incorrectly joined OP- 2 in this matter. The Complainant obtained the loan facility from the Bank through proper sanction letters and loan agreements. The contractual relationship exists solely between the Complainant and the Bank. OP-2 has not provided any services, directly or indirectly, to the Complainant. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP-2. The role of OP-2 is limited to publishing information received from banks, as per RBI guidelines. Thus, there is no nexus between the Complainant and OP- 2.

(ii)     OP- 2 functions as a Credit Information Company ("CIC") and it collects, processes, and publishes credit information provided by credit institutions. OP-2 does not alter or correct the information unilaterally, it disseminates information as reported by the banks and financial institutions. The responsibility for accurate reporting rests with the banks and financial institutions as per RBI guidelines. The RBI's circular mandates banks to submit wilful defaulters' lists to all CICs, including OP-2. CICs then disseminate this information on their websites to enable real-time access for banks. In accordance with Section 21(3) of the CIC Act, only credit institutions, such as banks, have the authority to rectify, modify, or update credit information. OP-2 can make corrections only after such rectifications have been certified by the relevant credit institution.

(iii)    The current complaint does not contain any allegations or prayers against OP-2. The Complainant's grievances are directed towards the Bank (OP-1, OP-3, OP-4). The Complainant's acknowledgment of the Bank's role is evident in their complaint. Moreover, the relief sought does not pertain to OP-2. The nature of the loan availed by the Complainant for commercial purposes raises the question of whether the Complainant falls within the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Complainant utilized the loan to advance their business activities and generate significant profits.

6.       Complainant in his rejoinder stated that: -

(i)      OP-1's failure to promptly inform the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) about the acceptance of the One Time Settlement (OTS) and the subsequent receipt of Rs. 3.56 Crores constitutes a significant breach of their duty of care. This omission to fulfill their essential responsibilities represents a departure from the anticipated standard of diligence and professionalism, and this lapse in accountability is attributed to OP-1. The focal point of this dispute revolves around the Complainant's adherence to the specified terms outlined in the Airport Authority of India (AAI) Contract. The fulfilment of these contractual prerequisites was hindered due to OP-1's inaccurate reporting. The erroneous representation by OP-1 regarding the issuance of a Security Deposit and a Bank Guarantee directly and detrimentally impacted the Complainant's ability to adhere to the contractual obligations.

(ii)     In accordance with the principles of double-entry accounting, were the bank to categorize the complainant as a wilful defaulter, this categorization should have manifested within their financial records, reflecting an outstanding receivable amount of Rs.417 lakhs, accompanied by a provision designated for potential bad debts. Nevertheless, the issuance of a zero balance statement in connection with the loan account casts a shadow over the accuracy of their audited balance sheet. The failure to rectify these inconsistencies gives rise to apprehensions regarding the exercise of due diligence and potential negligence.

(iii)    Bank’s (OP-1, OP-3 and OP-4) correspondence with OP-2 substantiates that it was the latter's inaccurate reporting that prompted their inclusion as participants in the Consumer Complaint. It is pertinent to clarify that OP-2 has not provided any services to the complainant. Rather, the complainant has been unjustly stigmatized as a "wilful defaulter" by OP-1, OP-3, and OP-4, an admission they themselves have made. The loan amount of Rs. 10 Crores procured by the complainant was earmarked for self-branding endeavours, devoid of any commercial ambitions. This loan was securitized against property and Book Debts, serving as collateral. Thus, the complainant unmistakably falls within the realm of a consumer under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, given that the loan was deployed for personal and non-commercial purposes.

7.       Heard both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the Complaint, based on their Complaint/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

(i)      The counsel for Bank (OP-1, OP-3, OP-4) argues that the complainant availed overdraft (ODBD) limits from OP-1 in the amount of Rs. 10 crores, as outlined in the Sanction Letter dated 28.04.2014. This overdraft was secured by primary security in the form of Book Debts (market value - Rs. 82.50 lakhs) and collateral security in the form of land and building (market value - Rs. 15.60 crores). Furthermore, a Suit was initiated by the Bank for recovery related to the Complainant's account before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Chennai, designated as OA 737/2015. Subsequently, the Bank sanctioned a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal in the borrower's account on May 31.05.2016, for Rs. 3.56 Crore. However, the OTS amount was not paid within the stipulated 30 days and was instead paid on various dates up to 30.11.2016. The Bank requested the Complainant to pay the delayed period interest amounting to Rs. 14.43 Lakhs, necessary for the issuance of a "No Dues Certificate." Upon payment of the interest, the Bank issued the "NO DUES" certificate on 13.01.2017.

(ii)     Counsel further argued that the Bank informed the Complainant via a letter dated 20.03.2017, that the outstanding amount of Rs.819.52 lakhs in their account, reported as SMA (Special Mention Account) on 19.12.2014, by Central Bank of India, had been closed on 14.01.2017. The Bank subsequently filed a "Full Satisfaction Memo" before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on March 09.03.2017, with the request to release the original title deeds/documents filed by the applicant Bank in OA 737/2015. The Complainant did not disclose that the "Original documents of title" provided as security for credit facilities of Rs. 10 crores to OP Bank were released upon request of the Complainant to HDFC Bank on 08.06.2017. This transfer occurred after the account closure with OP-1 Bank. Moreover, the Account was closed and Security was released by OP-1 on 08.06.2017, well before the Letter of Intent & Acceptance (LOIA) was issued to the Complainant by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) on 05.02.2018. The Complainant did not take steps to seek redressal or correction from Trans Union CIBIL regarding their appearance on the defaulters list. Such corrective measures could have been undertaken to rectify the situation. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) publishing the list of defaulters is to provide transparency and access to information for banks and financial institutions when considering credit requests. The intention is not to prevent business activities or financial opportunities. It is crucial to emphasize that the Complainant's grievances against OP-1 Bank seem misplaced and not directly linked to the issues surrounding the termination of the LOIA by AAI. Furthermore, the Complainant's claim of being a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act may not hold, as the loan facility in question was for commercial purposes. It is evident that the complainant's claim lack merit and could be considered beyond the limitation period for filing a complaint.

(iii)    Counsel for OP-2 argues that the Complainant themselves have acknowledged that they have no grievances against OP-2, and they have admitted that OP-2 published the credit information as supplied by other credit institutions in discharge of its statutory function. Consequently, OP-2 is prohibited under Section 21 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulations) Act, 2005, from altering or modifying such credit information without the consent or instructions of the credit institutions. This establishes that there is no cause of action against OP-2 and the Complaint may be dismissed on this basis.

(iv)    Counsel further argued that OP-2 is a credit information company regulated by the Reserve Bank of India and the Credit Information Companies (Regulations) Act, 2005. It collects, collates, processes, and publishes credit information received from various credit institutions, including OP-1, OP- 3, and OP-4. The publication of information, including designating individuals as wilful defaulters, is conducted in accordance with relevant regulations and directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

(v)     OP-2's role is limited to disseminating information provided by credit institutions, and it lacks the authority to unilaterally alter, modify, or delete credit information. Any changes to credit information must adhere to the provisions of Section 21(3) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulations) Act, and such changes can only be made upon certification by the concerned credit institution. The Complaint is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP-2; OP-2 has not provided any services to the Complainant. Complainant had availed the loan for commercial purposes, and as such, they do not meet the definition of "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act. The Complainants' loan was intended to advance their business activities, making the purpose of the transaction commercial rather than consumer-oriented. Furthermore, the Banking Ombudsman had already adjudicated on the matter and imposed penalties on OP-1, OP-3, OP-4. As a result, the subject matter has already been addressed and cannot be re-agitated before the present forum.

8.       We have perused relevant case records.  A fund based limit of Rs.10.00 crore was sanctioned by Bank to complainant vide letter dated 28.04.2014.  Vide letter dated 30.05.2016, complainant wrote to Bank for settlement and closure of the account.  Vide letter dated 13.01.2017, the Bank conveyed to complainant that they have received the settlement amount along with delayed interest and that there are no further dues payable by the complainant to the Bank in respect of said loan.  Relevant extract of said letter is reproduced below. 

          “Dear Sirs,

Reg:     One Time Settlement in your Loan account- M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd. - ODBD (A/c No: 3338325414).

Dues payable by you to our bank - Account settled under compromise.

Ref: 1.Your compromise letter dated 30.05.2016

              2.ARB: CHEN:2016-17: 116 dated 31/05/2016.

With reference to your compromise proposal on above loan account, you remitted compromise amount of Rs.356.00 lacs along with delayed period interest of  Rs.14,42,959/- on the following dates towards full and final settlement of dues the captioned account.

Hence, there are no further dues payable by you to our Bank in respect of the loan account.”

9.       Further, vide letter dated 20.03.2017, the bank informed the complainant that amount outstanding of Rs.819.52 lakhs in their account reported SMA on 19.12.2014 by the Bank is since closed on 14.01.2017.

10.     We have perused various statements produced by complainant downloaded from CIBIL site regarding List/Details of Suit Filed Accounts-Defaulters Rs.1crore and above. The statement as on 30.09.2020 (extraction date 04.01.2021) show the complainant’s name as defaulter of Bank (Central Bank of India, Mount Road Branch) of Rs.417 lakhs.  This statement also lists names of Directors Reported by Credit Institutions filing the Suit.  Relevant extract of Statement is given below.

Suit Filed Accounts-Defaulters Rs.1 crore and above as on 30-Sep-2020 Search Details Date of extraction 04-Jan-2021 Borrowers details

      Name Of Directors Reported by Credit Institutions Filing the Suit:

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

1.         AVINASH NAHAR

2.         CMD M ABIRCHAND NAHAR

3.         KANTI KUMAR BETLA

List Of Credit Institutions to which Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd. is a defaulter:

11.     Similar details are given in the statements as on 30.06.2020, 31.03.2020, 31.12.2019, 30.09.2019, 30.06.2019, 31.03.2019, 31.12.2018, 30.09.2018, 30.06.2018, 31.03.2018, 31.12.2017, 30.09.2017, 30.06.2017, 31.03.2017, 31.12.2016, showing complainant to be a defaulter of the Bank to the tune of Rs.417.00 lakhs.  This clearly shows that the Bank despite receiving the full settlement amount and conveying to the complainant on 13.01.2017 that there are no further dues payable by the complainant to the Bank and conveyed vide letter dated 20.03.2017 that the account reported SMA on 19.12.2014 has since been closed on 14.01.2017, continued to report the complainant as defaulter to CIBIL for each quarter starting with quarter ending 31.03.2017 till quarter ending 30.09.2020.  This wrongful reporting of complainant’s status to CIBIL for the above said periods is admitted by the Bank.  This in our considered view is a very serious lapse and act of negligence, constituting deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank, which has adversely affected the reputation and credibility of the complainant in the market, resulting in losses to the complainant.

12.     We have perused letters dated 05.02.2018 from Airports Authority of India, Bhopal, (AAI) addressed to the complainant, vide which Letter of Intent to Award (LOIA) for Advertisement Rights Concession of Raja Bhoj Airport Bhopal have been awarded in favour of complainant.  Relevant extract of this letter is given below:-

“Reference may please be made to E-tender no. 2017_AAI_1894_1 and participation of M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Chennai thereof and being selected as successful Concessionaire for the aforesaid RFP and accordingly the same has been accepted by the Competent Authority of Airports Authority of India, Bhopal for Advertising Rights Concession to design, develop, operate and market the advertising opportunity at Bhopal Airport for a period of 10 years w.e.f. Concession Fee Commencement Date for an area admeasuring 4008 sq.ft. (3152 sq.ft. inside & 856 sq.ft. outside Terminal Building) @ Rs.651.04/- per sq.ft. per month plus applicable taxes i.e. Rs.26,09,368/- per month plus applicable taxes for first year and for subsequent concession years, the concession fee shall always be 110% of the Concession Fee in immediately preceding concession year on the terms and conditions mentioned in the RFP document.

The party shall fulfill all the conditions as specified in this Letter of Intent to Award to the satisfaction of Authority. Unless any of the conditions are waived in writing by Authority in the business incubation period of sixty (60) days, the Concessionaire shall comply with the following:- ….”

      One of the conditions of said LOIA was deposit of bank guarantee.  Relevant     

      para is reproduced below. 

          “14. Security Deposit

(i) On or before the date of execution of the concession agreement, the Concessionaire shall deposit Bank Guarantee equivalent to 8 months Concession Fee of the first year i.e. Rs.2,08,74,947/- (Two Crore Eight Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only)- (4008 sq.ft. x Rs.651.04 per sq.ft. per month x 8 months comes to Rs.2,08,74,947/-) and 2 months Concession Fee i.e. Rs.52,18,737/- (4008 sqft. x Rs.651.04 per sqft. per month x 2 months comes to Rs.52,18,737/-) in DD/PO with Authority in the first phase with validity up to 6 years.

(ii) On or before the commencement of 6th year i.e. Rs.42,02,413/- (4008 sqft. x Rs.1,048.50 per sqft. per month x 8 months comes to Rs.3,36,19,104/-) Bank Guarantee equivalent to 8 months Concession Fee of the 6th year and 2 months Concession Fee i.e. Rs.84,04,776/- (4008 sqft. x Rs.1048.50 per sqft. per month x 2 months comes to Rs.84,04,776/-) in DD/PO to be deposited in second phase with validity up to 6 months from the date of expiry of the contract period.  

            x x x x”

13.     Vide letter dated 29.06.2018, the AAI wrote to complainant about non-fulfillment of conditions of LOIA.  Relevant portion is extracted below.

   “उपरोक्त विषय के संबंध में आपको प्रदान किए गए उपरोक्त LOIA का अवलोकन करने का कष्ट करें संदर्भित LOIA के माध्यम से आपको भोपाल विमानतल पर 10 वर्षों के विज्ञापन अधिकार ठेका प्रदान किया गया है ।

विषयान्तर्गत आपको यह सूचित किया जाता है कि आपके द्वारा दिनांक 29/06/2018 तक उपरोक्त ठेके के संबंध में निम्नलिखित शर्ते पूरी नहीं की गई है :-

  1. To furnish the security deposit within the period prescribed in the LOIA

  2. To sign the integrity pact within 15 days from the date of receipt of this LOIA

 3. To sign the concession agreement within 15 days from the date of receipt this LOIA

 4. To furnish the corporate / bank guarantee

अतः यथाशीघ्र उपरोक्त वर्णित कार्यवाही पूर्ण कर इसकी सूचना से इस कार्यालय अवगत करवाने का कष्ट करें ।“

14.     Complainant have rendered their services to various organizations like United India Insurance Co., P.W.D., Chennai, etc., who have issued letters/certifications recognizing their good work. 

15.     We have perused a communication dated 05.05.2018 from HDFC Bank addressed to complainant regarding sanction of Rs.250 lakh Bank Guarantees.  Relevant extract of which is given below:

“As discussed please clarify on the below points for the sanction of Rs.250 lakhs of EG

1)         SMA 2 REPORTED BY Central Bank of India is reflecting

2)         Central Bank of India has reported under suit filed accounts for August and

September 2016 and March 2017.”

16.     Vide their letter dated 06.03.2018, complainant wrote to OP bank, asking them to update their reports.  The relevant extract is given below.

            “Sub: Request regarding updating of RBI reports & RBI Suit Filed Data

This is to inform that we have closed our account related to project loan of Rs.10 Crores (a/c no. 3338325414).  We approached HDFC Bank of CC limits requirement.  But even after closing the account, still the RBI reports and RBI suit filed data is not updated.

Kindly do the needful in updating the reports and in the meantime give us a letter that the required reports will be updated at the earliest effort basis.”

17.     Again on 08.03.2018, complainant wrote a detailed letter to OP Bank, relevant extract of which are reproduced below.

“Sub:        Willful customer harassment, defamation and financial loss caused by persistent erroneous reporting by Central Bank of India - defaming the long standing credible repute of ad bureau advertising private limited and its directors by persistent wrong updates in RBI Suit filed accounts of Rs. 1 Cr and above in TUCIBIL reports.

The bank in the report closing 31.12.2017 continues to show an amount outstanding of Rs. 417 lakhs despite account being closed for over a year with receipt of full satisfaction memo and No dues certificate in Jan 2017 itself.

We bring to your immediate attention an alarming situation and call for your immediate action. It's with deep disappointment and concern we bring to your immediate knowledge that Central Bank of India continues to report adbureau in the RBI defaulters list (TUCIBIL reports) with Rs.417 lakhs as outstanding liability (as per reporting ending 31.12.2017). This, despite the account being closed as early as Jan 2017, with receipt of no-dues certificate, from your bank.

 Please note, we have recently bagged a 10 years exclusive master concessionaire license of BHOPAL AIRPORT from the Airport Authority of India, for which multiple banks have come forward to fund the project but due to the persistent erroneous reporting by the Chennai zone ARB and mount road branch of Central Bank of India, and willful denial to rectify the same, we are on the verge of losing a potential Rs. 60 crores license.

 During the tenure of the loan, the bank charged exorbitant interest rates of 20.25% despite several requests to lower the same. However the company, choose to repay the loan amount in full as mutually agreed upon and the same was settled as early as 28.11.2016 with a meager amount of Rs14 lakhs odd pending on account of dispute on banking charges and interest calculations. As of Jan 2017 all disputed charges were also settled the loan account was duly closed.

Thus under no circumstances did the bank have the entitlement to report the company in the Rs. 1 crores and above willful defaulters list to RBI even in the Dec 2016 cut-off list. Despite receiving the full settlement the local officers in the ARB division of Chennai zone continued to keep us in the dark about the suit filed status filed with RBI which was uploaded on 04.08.2017, evincing attempts of deceiving the customers for reasons unknown.

 As per RBI Guidelines and Circular no DBOD No. BC/CIS/47/20.16.002/94 (enclosed for ready reference) only AMOUNT OUTSTANDING needs to be reported.

 Wrong Reports in RBI Suit filed accounts of Rs. 1 Cr. and above by CENTAL BANK OF INDIA listed below and the snap shot of the same are enclosed for your quick reference where the company's name along with all the Directors names are reported with outstanding of Rs. 417 lakhs:

1. TUCIBIL suit filed accounts of Rs.1 cr and above as on 31Dec 2016 - (snap shot enclosed)
2. TUCIBIL suit filed accounts of Rs.1 cr and above as on 31 March 2017 - (snap shot enclosed)
3. TUCIBIL suit filed accounts of Rs.1cr and above as on 30 Jun 2017 - (snap shot enclosed)
4. TUCIBIL suit filed accounts of Rs1cr and above as on 30 Sept 2017 - (snap shot enclosed)
5. TUCIBIL suit filed accounts of Rs.1 cr and above as on 31 Dec 2017 - (snap shot enclosed)

We have made several representations to the Officers of the Central Bank of India, a prestigious Nationalized Bank, but in vain. We have made written and oral requests to correct the wrong reporting via emails, in-person letters, WhatsApp messages and phone calls but in vain as no action has been taken by the bank which continues to show Rs. 417 Crores as outstanding. Liability where as in reality, all amounts due have been settled for over a year as of now. In the present situation, despite receipt of full amount outstanding, the Bank has tarnished our image in the BFSI community via its outdated status reporting and continues to deny its mistakes by not taking the required action to correct the erroneous suit filed status. This turns the mistake into a willful act of customer harassment, willful defamation and thorough lack of professionalism on account of the bank officials.”

          x x x x

          Ad Bureau has presently suffered a huge loss of reputation, loss of customer confidence, financial loss and is now under the threat of losing a Rs. 60 crores worth of license. An immediate response from your side would be highly appreciated and would also us to decide the next course of action.

18.     Again on 20.04.2018, complainant wrote to OP Bank.  Relevant extract of which is as follows.

 “Sub: Wrong reporting by Central Bank of India in RBI TRANS CIBIL

          under suit filed case of Rs. 1 crore and above outstanding amounts,

          even after the account fully closed in 2016-

         the name of ad bureau still not removed.

Account Name: AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT  LTD.

A/C no : 3338325414

Bank name: Central Bank of India, Mount Road branch

A/c closed with full amount: Nov 2016

This is to inform that the wrong reporting still continues in the Central Bank of Ad Bureau Account which has been closed in NOV 2016 itself, There was no outstanding of over Rs. 1 crore in the account as on Nov. 2016, however the same has been reported under suit filed cases of outstanding balances of Rs.1 crore and above in Dec 2016 again in Jan 2017 repeated in March 2017, June 2017, Sept 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, March 2018.

            x x x x

HDFC has sanctioned our BG for Rs. 2.5 Crores, but are unable to do so because of your wrong reporting in the RBI AND CIBIL.

This is in connection with the Bhopal Airport Contract.

If this is not done today, we will be loosing a contarat of Rs. 60 Crores and Cental Bank of India would be liable for it as has not corrected its mistakes inspite of several meetings, reminders, emails, followups.

Kindly do the needful today itself and inform us by the return of the mail.

x x x x”

19.     We have perused letters dated 24.04.2019 from AAI addressed to complainant titled “Debarment in future participation in AAI Tenders/RFP”, as per which complainant has been debarred for a period of 03 years w.e.f. 24.04.2019 to 23.04.2022 from participating in AAI Tenders/RFP on account of various reasons stated in this letter, which include non-compliance of various formalities, non submission of Bank Guarantee, Concession Agreement and Integrity Pact, non-submission of media plan etc. which led to termination of license on 08.03.2018.

20.     We have perused communication dated 18.07.2018 from Banking Ombudsman to Complainant’s Director, relevant extract of which is given below. 

“Complaint No. 201718006010573 against Central Bank of India.

 Please refer to the captioned complaint filed with us. In this connection, we would like to inform you that the matter was taken up with Central Bank of India. The bank in its reply submitted that M/s Ad Bureau Advertising P Ltd., had availed multiple credit facilities and the same were settled under compromise at their Asset Recovery Branch. On receipt of the compromise amount, the bank has filed the full satisfaction memo in DRT on January 23, 2017 and obtained the original title deeds. They also informed that their Central Office submitted the format for deletion of name from RBI Defaulters list and CIBIL record updation on April 26, 2018. Further they stated that the title deeds and other documents were filed in DRT and taking back the same from DRT took time, due to which the process of sending communication to CIBIL Cell got delayed.

2. On perusal of the documents, it was observed that there was an apparent delay in the part of the bank in communicating the closure of the accounts to CIBIL. The bank was, therefore, directed to pay a compensation of 10,000/- for the inconvenience caused to you in this regard and the bank has also confirmed having paid the compensation.” 

21.     We have perused the legal notice dated 28.09.2019 sent by complainant to OP Bank & CIBIL, which inter alia contains details of loss of Revenue due to negligence of Bank, and the total loss mentioned in this notice is Rs.57.38 crore.  This notice was replied to by Bank on 04.11.2019. 

22.     In view of the above discussion, we are in agreement with the contentions of the complainant that OP Bank’s failure to promptly inform the Debt Recovery Tribunal about the acceptance of One Time Settlement (OTS) and subsequent receipt of Rs.3.56 crores, and wrongful reporting to CIBIL about complainant’s status as defaulter constitute a serious breach of duty on the part of OP Bank making OP Bank liable to compensate the Complainant for loss on account of acts of negligence and deficiency in service on their part.  Although the entire blame of termination of licence by AAI and consequent future debarment from Tenders/RFP cannot be attributed to the acts of negligence on the part of OP Bank, but it contributed significantly to such eventuality, as on account of act of OP Bank in wrongful reporting of complainant’s status as defaulter to CIBIL, complainant were not able to get the requisite Bank guarantee from the HDFC, which was one of the essential condition under the LOIA issued by AAI.  Although the Banking Ombudsman found OP Bank guilty of wrongful reporting of complainant’s status to CIBIL, they awarded a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/-, although the complainant alleged huge losses running into crores due to negligence/wrongful action of OP Bank.  The erroneous reporting of complainant’s status to CIBIL did affect the complainant’s business prospects adversely as they could not fulfill some of their contractual obligations.  We do not find merit in the contentions of OP Bank that complainant did not take steps to seek redressal or correction from Trans Union CIBIL regarding their appearance in defaulters list.  CIBIL primarily goes by the information/details provided by the Banks in this regard.  It was the duty of OP Bank to submit correct details to CIBIL regarding complainant’s status.  Despite being requested by complainant repeatedly in this regard, they failed in fulfilling their bounden duty in this regard.  Their action is in clear violation of guidelines of the RBI on the subject.  OP-2 has clearly stated that they are prohibited U/s 21 of Credit Information Companies (Regulations) Act, 2005 from altering or modifying such Credit Information without the consent or instructions of the credit institutions.  The publication of information, including designating individuals as willful defaulters, is done in accordance with relevant regulations and directives issued by RBI.  Hence, OP-2 on its own, simply on complainant’s request, without OP Bank’s consent or instructions, could not have altered/corrected the status of complainant in their records.  From their side, complainant took all reasonable steps to request the OP Bank to correct their status, but the OP Bank miserably failed in their bounden duty to correct the status of complainant with CIBIL. 

23.     From the foregoing, it is clear that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 512 held  “The word "Compensation" is of a very vide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done”.  In Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd Vs Abhisekh Khanna and  Ors (2021)3 SCC 241 Hon’ble Supreme Court held "Consumer Fora had jurisdiction to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of power to direct removal of deficiency in service". Hence, we hold that OP Bank (OP-1, OP-3 & OP-4 jointly and severally) is guilty of negligence and deficiency in service towards the complainant, entitling the complainant to a reasonable compensation for the loss of business opportunity, loss of reputation, harassment and mental agony.

24.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the Consumer Complaint is partially allowed and disposed off with the following directions/reliefs: -

(i)      OP Bank (OP-1, OP-3 & OP-4 jointly & severally) shall pay a compensation of Rs. 75.00 lakhs (Rs. seventy five lakhs) to the complainant within three months of this order.

(ii)     OP Bank shall, within two months of this order, issue a certificate to the complainant, inter alia stating clearly the following:-

(a)      That the loan account of complainant with OP Bank was settled by them and there were no outstanding dues in the said account as on 13.01.2017 (giving all requisite details).

(b)     That OP Bank has been wrongly reporting the status of complainant as defaulters to CIBIL from 31.03.2017 till 30.06.2020 (requisite details as per records to be given).

(c)      That Complainant shall be free to produce such certificate to its business clients for the purpose of presenting correct facts relating to their status during that relevant period.

(iii)    OP Bank shall also pay litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- to complainant.

(iv)    All payments under the order to be made within three months, failing which, it shall carry interest @9% till the date of actual payment.

25.     The pending IAs, in the Consumer Complaint, if any, also stand disposed off.