BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 06^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. Direct the OP1 to withdraw the bad remarks sent to OP2 about their financial irregularity.
2. Direct the OP2 to remove the complainant from under rating their credit ratings and restore normal ratings as enjoyed by them earlier before the false reporting of OP1.
3. Direct the OP1 to pay the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing loss of dignity, financial inconvenience, social sufferings, mental agony, stress and anguish to the complainants.
4. Direct the OP to pay the cost of the complaint and to grant such other relief/s.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainants have availed two home loans in the year 2004 from the OP and agreed to repay loan in 144 monthly installments with agreed rate of interest.

3.       It is further case of the complainants that they have availed two loans one for purchase of plot Rs.2,78,000/- and for construction Rs.3,67,500/- from OP1 as per the pre-approved terms and conditions.  After disbursal of the loan the complainants started to pay the monthly EMI for 176 months in excess of 32 months.  Even then the liability in the books of accounts of the OP1 shows Rs.1,12,446/- and Rs.70,680/- as outstanding liability as on 01.07.2019 and 08.03.2019.

4.       It is further contention taken by the complainant that they realized that the first OP is playing some mischievous games with the complainant by showing the huge liability still outstanding even though they have paid more than what they have been agreed before sanction of loan.  Hence they approached this Commission and filed complaint in CC No.1196/2020.

5.       It is further case of the complainant that due to the spread of covid 19 pandemic and related various factors there was delay in progress of proceedings. In the mean time the complainant’s daughter got a seat in a medical college and the complainants wanted to admit her by paying hefty admission fees.  To overcome this difficulty of fee payment problem they approached some bank and sought for some loan under higher education loan scheme prevailing in the vogue. At that time the bank informed the complainants that they are not eligible for the requisite education loan as they have been under rated by CIBIL by second OP. The first OP has candidly informed the second OP about the so called irregularities in repayment of loans availed by the complainants which has resulted in under rating of the score of the complainants, thus making them ineligible for their future loan requirement. The first OP has committed an error in considering the loan accounts of the complainant as bad and reporting to the second OP falsely under rating their repayable capacity has spoiled the complainants financial plans.  

6.       The complainants have very much disturbed by the illegal acts of the OP1 in one sided reporting to the second OP resulted in unnecessary troubles.

7.       It is further contention taken by the complainant that they were disgusted over the attitude of the OPs and they have approached the official of the RBI and explained their agony and remedial measures to come out of this holocaust. The official has informed them that the CIBIL rate are arrived on the report of the banks/financial institutions regarding any of their customers.  There is no exception even if these banks or financial institutions wrongly project the customers. It is also revealed that these banks or financial institutions have played fraud against the gullible customers in expectations of money or some favours.  Because of such unbridled powers enjoyed by them without any regulations or reasoning most of the customers are subjected to the sufferings for no fault of them.  The RBI official has also advised the complainants to approach the Consumer Forums.  Hence they have filed this complaint.

8.       In response to the notice, OP1 appeared and filed version.  They admitted that loan transaction and advancement of two loan of Rs.2,78,000/-  and Rs.3,67,500/- for floating rate of interest at 7.5% p.a., and at 8% p.a., respectively.

9.       It is further case of the OP that the applicable floating interest rate is linked to retail lending rate of the OP.  In case of increase of interest rate EMI and tenure will be varied.  Accordingly the applicable rate of interest was charged on the loan of the complainants from time to time.  No excess amount is recovered from the OPs.  There is no deficiency of service.  In fact the complainants are liable to pay outstanding amount. 

10.     It is further case of the OP that as per the loan agreement the bank provide credit information to CIBIL on monthly basis, the said information reflects whether the loan account is regular or delinquent. The complainants outstanding dues in the bank it will not be possible for the bank to inform the CIBIL otherwise.  The OP has to inform the CIBIL owning to nonpayment of dues for more than 180 days. The loan account is termed as non performing assets. For the default of the loan account the complainant credit worthiness has come down and this OP is not responsible for CIBIL score rating.  As per the guidelines of the RBI they are sharing the details with the CIBIL.  They have denied all the other allegations made in the complaint.

11.     It is further contention taken by the OP that in CC No.1196/2020 the complainant has filed IA u/s 35 of the C.P. Act and the court has rejected the IA and after rejection of the same the complainant has filed this complaint on the same cause of action. Hence this second complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

12.     The OP2 has filed the version. The complaint is not maintainable against them and it is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is barred u/s 31 (b) of CICRA and except the Supreme Court and High Court under their respective writ jurisdiction can entertain the complaint.

13.     It is further case of the OP2 that the complainant herein disputing the account information of the loan account reported by the OP1 in the complainants CIR.  This OP2 carried out detailed analysis of the complainants credit information as available in its data base.  As per the provisions under CICRA raised the complainants grievances to confirm the status of credit information with respect to the disputed accounts and requested to issue directions or any change in the credit information of the complainant. In reply to the dispute raised by OP2 response from the OP1 is awaited.  They have denied all other allegations made by the complainants.  If this Hon’ble Commission passes an order directing the OP1 to instruct OP2 to make the required changes in the complainants credit information this OP2 shall duly comply with the order of this Commission.  Hence the OP2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 14.    The complainants file affidavit evidence of complainant No.2 and relies on 5 documents.  OPs have not filed any affidavit evidence. Heard the arguments of the complainant only. OPs have not appeared to address arguments, nor have filed any written argument.  Perused the records and written argument filed by the complainant.

15.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether the complainants prove deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
3. What  order?

16.   Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Negative

      Point No.2:- Negative

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

                                REASONS

17.       Point No.1 AND 2:    The Complainant No.2 filed affidavit evidence and relied on five documents. Ex.P1 is the home loan approval letter, Ex.P.2 is the copy of Pass sheet of entire transaction, Ex.P3 is the pass sheet of entire transaction, Ex.P4 is the CIBIL report.

18.       On the other hand, even though the OP1 and 2 have filed their version have not produced any evidence.

19.       It is pertinent to note here that earlier the complainants have filed CC No.1196/2020 against the OP1 for the same transaction.  During the pendency of the proceedings they have also filed an IA u/s 35 of the C.P. Act, seeking for a direction to implead the OP2 in this complaint as an OP in that complaint. The Commission has rejected the IA as not maintainable on the reason that there is no prayer in the main complaint against the CIBIL.  Hence the complainant again filed this complaint by making the CIBIL as OP2 in this complaint.

20.       This commission has already disposed off the complaint No.1196/2020 filed by the complainant in this complaint, against OP1 on 23.08.2022 and dismissed the complaint holding that the complainants herein have not cleared the outstanding loan amount as per there say that they have paid all the outstanding loan in April 2016. Further the complainant without disclosing the applicability of floating rate of interest have approached this Commission with unclean hands by suppressing the theory of floating rate of interest applicable to both the loan. Therefore this Commission has come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 bank and rejected the complaint. 

21.       Under these circumstances, it is clear that this Court has already given a finding that the complainant have not paid all the outstanding loan amount in April 2016 as per the applicability of the floating rate of interest.

22.       Under these circumstances, the say of the complainants that the OP 1 has committed an error in considering the loan account of the complainant as bad and reporting to the OP2 falsely under rating their repayable capacity has spoiled there financial plans and thereby the OP1 and 2 have committed deficiency of service cannot be accepted.

23.       When the complainants have not at all cleared the loan the OP as per the RBI directions has to report to the OP2 about the outstanding dues of the complainant in the bank. It is not possible for the OP1 to inform the OP2 otherwise.  As per the RBI guidelines the OP1 has to inform the OP2 owning to nonpayment of dues for more than 180 days, the loan account is termed as non performing assets.

24.       In view of the default of the loan account the credit worthiness of the complainants has come down. Hence the OP1 has given the credit information related to the disputed loan account to the OP2.  The OP2 being an authority has given the credit rating on the basis of credit information sent by the OP1 as per CICR Act.

25.       Under these circumstances the complainants have failed to establish the deficiency of service and the negligence on the part of OP1 and OP2. Therefore the complainants are not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the complaint. Hence we answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.

26.       POINT NO.3:     In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to be dismissed. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 06^TH day of JANUARY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;