View 285 Cases Against Citi Bank
Harpal Singh filed a consumer case on 24 Dec 2015 against The Manager Citi Bank in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/214/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Dec 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.
Complaint Case No.:214 of 2015
Date of Institution : 06.08.2015
Date of decision : 24.12.2015
Harpal Singh son of Shri Chanan Singh resident of House No.2052/A, Opposite Gurudwara, Tagore Garden,Naraingarh Road, Ambala City.
……Complainant
Versus
1. The Manager Citi Bank, SCo No.132, 133 & 134, Madhya Marg, Sector-9, Chandigarh.
2. The Managing Director, Citi Bank, N.A., Ground Floor, Club House Road, Chennai-600002.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. G.S. Sullar, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Mehar Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.
ORDER.
Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant obtained a loan from OP vide loan account No.A4K4986778353 for purchasing the vehicle which was registered vide Regn. No.HR01-P-1000 and was under hypothecation with OP Bank. It has been alleged that complainant cleared all the installments of the above-said loan to the OPs and accordingly, they issued NOC & Form No.35 on 26.03.2015 to the complainant. It has been further alleged that the Ops intentionally & deliberately for harassing the complainant listed his name in Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (CIBIL) showing that the loan of the complainant is still pending. The complainant submitted a written application to the Ops with a prayer to delete his name & account number from the list of loanee as well as to CIBIL but of no avail which is a deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. It has been further contended by the complainant that he approached State Bank of India, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City for advancing a loan but they showed their inability to advance EDFS loan to him because his name is in CIBIL list. Thus the complainant has prayed that the Ops may be directed to delete his name from the list of loanee as well as CIBIL and provide other reliefs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the complaint.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint on the ground of suppression of material facts & barred by Law of limitation. On merits, it has been urged that in the month of October 2002, the complainant started committing defaults in repayment of the aforesaid loan amount and thereafter till May 2004, he was irregular in making payments of his EMIs despite reminders by the Ops. However, in the month of May 2004, Ops offered one time settlement to the complainant for closure of his loan account by depositing a sum of Rs.2,96,000/- in one installment which was duly accepted by the complainant and pursuant to the same, amount of Rs.2,96,00/- was deposited by the complainant in the month of May 2004 qua his loan account with the Ops. Accordingly, on receipt of the said payment from the complainant, his loan account was closed by the Ops as “Settled Post Write Off” with NIL outstanding. Furthermore, as desired and requested by the complainant, the Ops also issued NOC alongwith Form 35 in favour of complainant. It has been further submitted by the Ops that merely because the complainant had settled his loan account with the Ops, his status as a defaulter cannot be changed and as such being a defaulter, complainant cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of Ops and thus his credit records pertaining to the impugned loan account had been updated as “settled post write off’ with the CIBIL and accordingly prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To prove his case, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-8 in his evidence and closed the same whereas OP’s counsel tendered affidavit of one Jagmohan Singh, authorized signatory of OP Bank as Annexure R-X and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. At the very outset, it is admitted fact on record that OP Bank itself offered one time settlement to the complainant for closure of his loan account by depositing a sum of Rs.2,96,000/- in one stretch and thereafter, they issued NOC & Form No.35 regarding clear of loan and deletion of hypothecation respectively in the R.C. of vehicle No.HR01P-1000 vide documents (Annexures C-3 to C-6) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that “NOC implies that you have cleared all your dues”. Further perusal of document Anenxure C-2, it reveals that the complainant approached State Bank of India, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City for EDFS Loan of Rs.72.00 lacs in July 2015 but the bank intimated the complainant that “they are unable to process his EDFS loan because during checking of his CIBIL report, it is observed that status of one of your auto loan for Rs.601277/- opened on 18.09.2002 is shown as Post (WO) settled.”
Now, the main grievance of the complainant is that as per Annexure C-7 (CIBIL Consumer Credit Information Report), his name is listed with CIBIL as a result of which the complainant is suffering a lot while dealing with other banks which is neither justified nor legal in the eyes of law because after getting cleared all dues from complainant by the OP Bank, it is not justified from the mouth of Ops that the status of complainant as defaulter cannot be changed especially when they have shown NIL outstanding against the Loan Account of complainant in their records. Further, the offer of one time settlement was given by the OP Bank itself and not by the complainant. So, in these circumstances, putting the name of complainant on CIBIL list by OP Bank is not only an example of unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank rather a deficiency in service on their part.
In view of the facts discussed above and evaluating the documents placed on record, we have come to the conclusion that the Ops are not only deficient in providing proper services to the complainant rather they have played unfair trade practice with him despite clearance of loan by the complainant and thus the OP Bank have wrongly dragged the name of complainant in CIBIL despite NIL outstanding against him resulting into lowering his reputation in the society. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-
The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Ops within the stipulated period otherwise the awarded amounts shall fetch simple interest @ Rs.12% per annum for the period of default and complainant shall be entitled to invoke the provisions of C.P. Act for implementation of the said order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED: 24.12.2015 Sd/-
(A.K. SARDANA)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.