Date of Filing 05.02.2019

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 08.04.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                          …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

               THIUR.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA (Inter), BL.,                                                           ……MEMBER-II

RBT/CC.No.47/2024

THIS MONDAY, THE 08^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

Mr.S.Krishnakumar,

No.25, Harbour Colony, 2^nd Street,

Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118.                                                         ......Complainant.

                                                                                   //Vs//

1.The General Manager,

    Cholamandam Investment & Finance Company Limited,

    Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

2.The Credit Manager,

   Cholamandam Investment & Finance Company Limited,

   Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.                                             ……Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                         : M/s.B.K.Girish Neelakantan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                   : M/s.K.B.Vivekanandan, Advocate.

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.14/2020 and transferred to this commission by the administrative order in RC.No.J1/3145/2023 dated 09.11.2023 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as RBT/CC.No.47/2024 and this complaint coming before us finally on 12.03.2024 in the presence of M/s.B.K.Girish Neelakantan, counsel for the complainant and M/s.K.B.Vivekanandan, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties  with regard to failure to remove the name of the complainant from the defaulter’s list in the CIBIL Report along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service, to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for negligence, to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and pain and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that he had obtained a personal loan from the opposite parties’Bank for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by entering into Loan Agreement No.XSEGCHE00000003746 that he had repaid the entire loan amount along with interest in the year 2007.  The Statement of Accounts issued by the opposite parties’ Bank would clearly shows the repayment of the said loan without any default. When the complainant approached other financial institutions for obtaining personal loan to satisfy his business needs, the complainant was shocked and surprised to know that adverse entry was made by the opposite party in CIBIL.  Ppposite parties’ bank had failed to update the loan closure with the CIBIL. Complainant sent letter communication on 06.08.2018 and on 11.08.2019 to the opposite parties requesting to comply the request of the complainant to update the said loan closure in CIBIL.  Despite informing, the opposite parties had not taken any steps to update the status of the said loan with the CIBIL.  Due to the negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant’s profile for obtaining loan from other financial institutions was affected which caused huge mental agony and loss to his business. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties’ Bank the present complaint was filed for the relief as mentioned above.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

3. The opposite parties filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the complaint does not disclose correct details about loans availed by the complainant.  In fact, the CIBIL Report upon which complaint was based has not been produced by the complainant. Complainant obtained 2 loans from the opposite parties under Loan Agreement Nos. XSEGCHE00000003746 & XSEGCHE00000149762 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,64,000/- respectively. Complaint only refers to one loan obtained for Rs.3,00,000/- and details regarding other loan for Rs.1,64,000/- has not been disclosed by the complainant. While payment for first few installments was paid, thereafter complainant committed default in repayment of some installments under both loan agreements.  Payment on 28.11.2009 of Rs.30,000/- through DD was made towards outstanding amount in Loan Account No. XSEGCHE00000149762 and the account was subsequently closed.  The complainant has not produced any receipt for Rs.30,000/- issued by the opposite parties since it would reveal payment towards Agreement No. XSEGCHE00000149762.  Instead the complainant was relying upon Bank confirmation which could not show towards which loan payment was made.  Complainant was indulging in such tactics to avoid revelation that the payment was not made towards Agreement No. XSEGCHE00000003476 and that the account was still in default.  With respect to Loan Account No.XSEGCHE00000003476, the complainant has not taken any steps towards payment of outstanding amount due when as on date was Rs.38,490/- towards installment dues and Rs.1,70,921/- towards penal charges for default. Negative score reflected in CIBIL report was due to complainant’s failure in repayment of the loan under Agreement No. XSEGCHE00000003476.  The complainant was required to take necessary steps to pay the outstanding amount and could not demand closure of dues or alternation of his CIBIL status by the opposite parties without such repayment.  If the complainant had any dispute over the Statement of Accounts which was issued on 20.06.2011 he would have raised the same.  Present complaint in 2021 was therefore hopelessly barred by limitation. It was submitted that there was no negligence in updating status of Loan Account or complying with any request of the complainant being made after 7 years. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed with documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex 5. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed with documents marked as Ex.B1 to B6.

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the allegations raised against the opposite parties that they failed to remove the name of the complainant from the defaulter list thereby causing prejudice to the CIBIL score of the complainant to obtain loan from other financial institutions has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
2. If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

5. Heard both learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the opposite parties.

6. The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the complainant is that though he had closed the Loan Account availed with the opposite parties by way of One Time Settlement in 2009 itself the opposite parties did not take any steps to update the loan with the CIBIL. Thus when he approached another Bank for loan purpose he was denied the same.  Further it is argued by him that though in written version the opposite parties had stated that it pertains to some other Loan Account no intimation was given with respect to it and no details were reflected in the Statement of Account.  Thus it is contended by him that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that the complainant had availed two loans out of which one loan was remaining and another one closed.  Further it is stated by him that the complainant had failed to submit the CIBIL report to establish towards which loan account he was shown as a “defaulter”.  Thus stating that the complainant’s Loan Account No.XSEGCHE00000003476 was still due and that only the Loan Account No. XSEGCHE00000149762 has been closed by One Time Settlement, contending that there is no deficiency in service on their part they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

8. We perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by both the parties.  The complainant produced the Statement of Accounts relating to the Loan Account No.XSEGCHE000003476.  Further the request letter sent by him to the opposite party’s Nodal Officer requesting them to rectify the CIBIL data was as Ex.A2, in the Statement of Account relating to the Loan Account No.XSEGCHE00000149762.  It is seen that there is no due to be paid.  However when the opposite parties contended that the complainant had availed two Loan Accounts vide separate Loan Agreement Nos. XSEGCHE00000003746 & XSEGCHE00000149762 and when one Loan Account was repaid and the other remains unpaid, it becomes mandatory for the complainant to produce the Statement of Accounts relating to both Loan Accounts to show that both have been closed.  Especially, when the opposite parties had produced the Loan Agreement and Statement of Accounts for both loans obtained by the complainant from the opposite parties.

9. As rightly pointed out by the opposite parties, the complainant failed to submit the CIBIL report enabling this commission to verify the particulars towards which loan account the complainant’s name was found under the ‘defaulter list’.  Even after the opposite parties taking the said defence i.e., non production of CIBIL report the complainant did not take any efforts to produce the same before this commission.  However, this commission could presume from the available material evidences that out the two loans availed by the complainant, the complainant had closed one Loan Account and other loan account remains unpaid.  It is for the complainant to produce the Statement of Account for the other Loan Account No.XSEGCHE00000149762 referred by the opposite parties to prove the contrary.  In such circumstances when the complainant failed to discharge the initial burden of proof on his side, we could not hold any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  In such circumstances we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. If at all the complainant was aggrieved, due to wrong mentioning of his name in the defaulter list, by producing sufficient evidence to the CIBIL he could remove his name from the defaulter list. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

 10. As we have held above that the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency in service the complainant is not entitled any reliefs from the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order to costs.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 08^th day of April 2024.

Sd/-                                                               Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

  Sd/-                                                                   Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER-I                                      PRESIDENT