Punjab

Sangrur

CC/233/2019

Charanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trans Union CIBIL Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amrik Singh Dullat

04 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No.233

 Instituted on:   27.05.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     04.07.2023

 

 

Charanjit Singh son of Pritpal Singh, resident of Village Ganga Singh Wala, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Trans Union CIBIL Ltd. One India Bulls Centre, Tower 2-A, 19^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Flphinistone Road, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

2.    Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. Branch Office at Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its authorized signatory.

3.     Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. 3^rd Floor, No.165, Megh Towers, PH Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600096 through its authorized signatory.

             ….Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    : Shri A.S.Dullat, Adv.              

For the OP No.1         : Shri Sushil Kumar, Adv.

For OP NO.2&3         : Shri Gaganjot Singh, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that the complainant took a loan from the OP number 2 under loan account number 128925000001000 to the tune of Rs.50,000/- which was repayable in instalments and the complainant paid the whole loan amount and the OP number 2 issued loan clearance certificate to the complainant on 25.2.2012.  The grievance of complainant is that the complainant again applied for taking the loan, but the bank refused to advance the loan on the ground that in the CIBIL report name of the complainant is shown as defaulter as there is some over due amount of OP number 2 against the complainant, whereas nothing is due of the OP number 2. Further case of complainant is that he got served a legal notice dated 26.2.2019 upon the OP number 1 for clearing the overdue status of the complainant and the OP number 1 replied the legal notice vide letter dated 30.4.2019 and stated that the dispute was raised with OP number 2 and 3 regarding the above said loan account and also confirmed that there are overdue amount against the complainant, which is said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that they be directed to clear the name of the complainant from the defaulter list of CIBIL and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.             After filing of this complaint, notice of the same was issued to the OPs.

3.             In reply, OP number 1 has stated that the complaint is not maintainable as this Commission has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint and further stated that no court or authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority, except the Supreme Court and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in relation to the matters referred to in sections 4,5,6,7 and 18.   Further it is stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP number 1 as such the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. On merits, the allegations of the complainant have been denied in toto  and has prayed that the complaint qua OP number 1 be dismissed with special costs.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, that the present complaint is vague and not maintainable and lastly prayed that the complaint be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the loan clearance certificate dated 25.2.2012 was issued, but the other allegations have been denied. It is stated that some overdue amount of OP number 2 is due against the complainant. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

5.             During this process, complainant tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 to Ex.OP2&3/12 copies of documents and closed evidence.

6.             We have heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents produced on the file.

7.             At the very outset, it is significant to note that the averments of the complaint stands duly substantiated through sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 wherein the same were reiterated as to how the complainant is a consumer of the OP number 2 and 3 by taking the loan from them and also repaid the same, against which the OP number 2 issued  a certificate dated 25.2.2012, wherein it has been clearly mentioned ”…You have availed a personal loan of Rs.50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from our company under loan account number 128925000001000. We confirm having received the repayment of entire loan amount payable under the aforesaid Loan Account and there is no amount outstanding under the aforesaid loan account…”  Further we may mention that it is admitted by OP number 2 that the said certificate Ex.C-1 has been issued by OP number 2. The OP number 2 and 3 has further corroborated their stand in affidavit Ex.OP2&3/1 of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma whereas it is also admitted that loan clearance certificate dated 25.2.2012 was issued to the complainant.  In the circumstances, it is clear that there is nothing outstanding against the complainant of OP number 2 towards the loan account and that is why the OP number 2 issued the certificate Ex.C-1. We further failed to understand how  OP number 2 and 3 issued the clearance certificate to the complainant, if there were any dues towards the complainant of OP number 2 and 3. As such, we find that nothing of OP number 2 and 3 is due against the complaint towards the said loan account in question. Further this fact has not been reported by OP number 2 and 3 to OP number 1 intentionally, willfully and with malafide intention to get undue benefit from the complainant.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 2 and 3 that why they did not send the clearance of loan information towards complainant to OP number 1 to clear the CIBIL of the complainant, due to which the complainant had suffered heavily against the negligence of OP number 2 and 3.  Had the correct information been sent by OP number 2 and 3 to OP number 1 then the complainant could not have suffered any mental tension and harassment in taking the loan again as his CIBIL score was not clear. Further the above said allegations have been duly corroborated by the sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C-5 and copy of legal notice Ex.C-2. In the circumstances of the case, we find that nothing is due of OP number 2 and 3 towards the complainant and further feel that it is a fit case, where direction to the OP number 2 and 3 deserves to be issued for getting cleared the CIBIL of the complainant.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 and 3 to send the loan clearance certificate of complainant/all necessary documents to OP number 1 to correct/clear the CIBIL of the complainant. We further direct OP number 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

9.          This order be complied with by the opposite party number 2 and 3 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                       Pronounced.

                                     July 4, 2023.