West Bengal

StateCommission

A/6/2017

Deepak Kumar Khemka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trans Union CIBIL Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Avidip Kundu

25 Jun 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/6/2017
( Date of Filing : 04 Jan 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 16/11/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/519/2016 of District Kolkata-II(Central))
 
1. Deepak Kumar Khemka
S/o Lt. Krishna Kumar Khemka, Rajanigandha Apartment, 25, Ballygunge Park, Kolkata - 700 019.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Trans Union CIBIL Ltd
Hoechest House, 6th Floor, 193, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021.
2. The Managing Director, Trans Union CIBIL Ltd.
Hoechest House, 6th Floor, 193, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021.
3. Karur Vysya Bank
37, Shakespeare Sarani, Gr. Floor, Kolkata -700 017.
4. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Br. office, 93, Tollygunge Circular Road, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, W.B.
5. HDFC Bank
Stephen 4,B.B.D. Bag - East, Kolkata -700 001.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:Avidip Kundu, Advocate
For the Respondent: Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate
 Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate
 Swapnadip Das, Shreemoyee Ghosh., Advocate
 Sony Ojha,Punam Chowdhury, Dipanjan Paul, Advocate
Dated : 25 Jun 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 16-11-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in CC/519/2016, whereof the complaint has been dismissed.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that, owing to furnishing of negative report about his credit worthiness by the OP Nos. 1 & 2, the OP Nos. 3 and 4 refused to sanction any loan to him.  It is claimed by the Complainant, in the report provided to him by the OP Nos. 1&2 that, there was no mention of any negative remark about himself.  Aggrieved by the fact that the OP Nos. 1&2 furnished dissimilar reports to different quarters, the complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum.

It appears that the instant case was dismissed at the admission stage itself by the Ld. District Forum.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the documents on record.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1&2 argued that the complaint petition is not maintainable against them as there was no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 1&2.  He further stated that Banks and Financial Institutions are members of CIBIL and the records of the borrowers are maintained at the instance of Member Institution.  The fee paid by the Appellant was limited to obtaining of a copy of the CIBIL Report, which was duly provided to him.  The fees charged for providing a copy of the report, according to the Ld. Advocate, did not amount to payment of consideration for maintaining the record.  Thus, the Ld. Advocate averred that the Appellant does not qualify to be a consumer of these Respondents. 

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant vehemently opposed such contention of the Respondent Nos. 1&2.  By furnishing a copy of email, he contended that, on payment of necessary service charge for a sum of Rs. 500/-, the Appellant obtained a copy of the CIBIL report and therefore, he is a bona fide consumer of the Respondent No. 1 & 2.

As we know, Credit information Bureau India Ltd. or CIBIL is the repository of information which is pooled in from all Banks and lending Institutions operating in India. It is a composite credit bureau, which caters to both commercial and consumer segments.  On thoughtful consideration of the function of this organization it appears to us that mere payment of due charges for obtaining CIBIL report does not tantamount to hiring of services.  Therefore, the Appellant cannot be classified as a ‘consumer’.

On this score alone, the complaint case was not maintainable before the Ld. District Forum.  Therefore, dismissal of the complaint case appears to be fully in order.

The Appeal, accordingly, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed against the Respondents without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed. Appellant shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Court of Law, if he desires so.  In that case, he may be entitled to the benefit of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) for the purpose of exclusion of the time spent in pursuing his case under the 1986 Act so far.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.