BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.574/2019

PRESENT:                                                     

Sri.K.S.Bilagi, B.com, M.A., LL.M.…. PRESIDENT

Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B..… MEMBER

Sri.M.B.Seena, B.A., (Law), LL.B.…. MEMBER

S/o. Ramachandra Rao C.S,

Aged about 35 years,

R/at No.1404, 5^th Main,

‘D’ Block, 2^nd Stage, Rajajinagar,

 (Complainant is Rep. by Adv. Sri.Ashish Krupakar)

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Volkswagen Finance India Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its Registered Office at

Silver Utopia, 3^rd Floor,

Cardinal Gracious Road,

Chakala, Andheri East,

Rep. by its Managing Director/

Authorized Representative,

2. Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its Branch Office at

No.1101 and 1102,

Prestige Meridian-1,

Rep. by its Managing Director/

Authorized Representative,

 (OPs No.1 and 2 are Ex-parte)

= = = = = = = = = = = =

Author SRI K.S.BILAGI., PRESIDENT

******

//JUDGMENT//

1. It is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred as an Act) against the opposite parties claiming in all Rs.19,75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under;

The complainant has availed car loan of Rs.9,50,000/- from the opposite party on 21.07.2014 payable in 60 months.The complainant had repaid the entire loan.

3. It is the further case of the complainant that when he wanted to take personal loan from ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank who refused to advance the loan stating that CIBIL report is not favour.  Later on he was also informed that he has another loan to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- and monthly installment of Rs.32,000/-. He contends that except taking loan of Rs.9,50,000/- from the opposite parties, he has not availed loan of Rs.13,00,000/- at any point of time.  Even though his CIBIL report was favorable, but subsequently this action of the opposite parties about the loan transaction of Rs.13,00,000/- there was an adverse CIBIL report which was reduced to credit rating from 821 to 696.  Later on he approached the opposite party stating that he has not availed 2^nd loan of Rs.13,00,000/-. After dragging for some time the opposite party informed that he has not availed 2^nd loan of Rs.13,00,000/- and first loan has been repaid.

4. He contends that due to such action of the opposite party, there was adverse impact on his CIBIL report and he was deprived of taking loan.  Therefore, opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.

5. Despite service of notice, both the opposite parties failed to appear before this Commission.  Therefore, opposite parties have been placed exparte.

6. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 7 documents.  Heard the arguments of complainant.  Perused the records.

7. The following points arise for our consideration?

1. Whether complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether complainant is entitle to the reliefs sought in this case?

3. What order?

8. Our findings on the above points are as under?

POINT NO.1: In the Affirmative,

POINT NO.2: Affirmative in Part,

POINT NO.3: As per final order for the following;

9. POINTS NO.1 & 2:     Even though the opposite parties neither appeared nor contested the claim of the complainant.  But it is the duty of the complainant to prove all his contention and it is the duty of the Commission to decide the case of the complainant on merits.

10. The complainant has reiterated the facts pleaded in his complaint in his affidavit evidence and relies on 7 documents.

11. We carefully perused the facts pleaded in the complaint, affidavit evidence of the complainant and his documents. It has been proved that the complainant had availed car loan of Rs.9,50,000/- from the opposite party in the year 2014.  This fact has been proved from Ex.P1 that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.9,50,000/- repayable in 60 months installment with EMI of Rs.19,929/-.  Ex.P2 is the letter of the opposite party dated 25.12.2018 clearly indicates that the complainant had got closed his loan account No.20141055671.

12. Ex.P3 is the letter of opposite party about delay in getting issue rectified.  The number of emails correspondence have been made between complainant and opposite party from December 14, 2018 till December 18, 2018 with regard to the non taking of 2^nd loan of Rs.13,00,000/-.  Ex.P4 indicates that on 13.07.2018 the complainant had CIBIL credit rating 821.  Whereas Ex.P5 indicates that on 25.10.2018 within 3 months, the CIBIL rating of the complainant was reduced from 821 to 696.  Ex.P5 further indicates that on 25.10.2018 it has been shown that the complainant had sanctioned loan of Rs.13,00,000/- and current balance of Rs.11,38,158.  Whereas, Ex.P6 indicates that ICICI bank intimated the complainant on 20^th December 2018 that there were unable to grant loan due to their credit policy.  Similarly, Ex.P7 has been issued by opposite party about delay in rectification of CIBIL for loan account vide letter dated 19^th December 2018.  It means, due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant was made to suffer reduction of credit rating and deprived of loan tobe obtained from ICICI bank.  Only on 19^th December 2018 the opposite party realized its mistakes.  When the complainant has not availed 2^nd loan of Rs.13,00,000/-, the opposite parties are responsible for reduction of credit rating of the complainant.  This action of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service.
13. The complainant claims Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earning, Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of reputation and credit history.  He also claimed Rs.4,25,000/- towards malpractice in the business of the opposite parties and Rs.25,000/- towards legal expenses.

14. Even though complainant suffers due to the deficiency of service and showing that complainant availed 2^nd loan of Rs.13,00,000/- is responsible for reduction of credit rating of complainant.  It doesn’t mean that the complainant is automatically entitle all the claim.  The complainant has not placed any material towards loss of total earnings of Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant has not produced either his business records or commercial transaction to show there is a reduction of his earnings.  The claim of the complainant towards compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.19,25,000/- is not only exorbitant and complainant wants to enrich due to the deficiency of the opposite parties.  It is not a fit case to accept the case of the complainant to award the loss of Rs.50,000/- towards total loss of earning, Rs.19,25,000/- as a compensation.  However, the opposite parties being the reputed institution must not cause any harm to the public in general and complainant in particular, who has repaid entire loan of Rs.9,50,000/- with interest without any delay.  Under such circumstances, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for inconvenience caused to the complainant.  Under such circumstances, it is proper to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for inconvenience caused to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

15. POINT NO.3:     Having regard to the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs and after evaluating the evidence available on the record, the complaint requires to be allowed in part.  Complainant is entitle to Rs.1,00,000/- as a compensation towards deficiency of service and loss of reputation of the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.  We proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the complainant as compensation towards deficiency of service, mental agony and loss of reputation of the complainant.

The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.

The opposite parties are directed to comply this order within 60 days from this dated.If the opposite parties fail to pay this amount within stipulated time, the above amount shall carry 10% interest after expiry of 60 days till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return spare copies of the pleadings and evidence to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by the open Forum on 02^ND day of JANUARY 2021)

            (M.B.SEENA)            (L.MAMATHA)               (K.S.BILAGI)    

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

• , who being the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Ex.P1: The copy of the letter written by the opponent to the complainant dated 25.07.2014 informing that a credit facility of Rs.9,50,000/- has been availed by the complainant which is repayable in 60 equal months of installments,

2. Ex.P2: Copy of letter dated 25.12.2018 written by Volks Wagen Finance Private Limited to the Regional Transport Office informing that they have no objection for cancelling the hypothecation,

3. Ex.P3: The series of G-mail communication between complainant and the opponent in all 5 sheets (Doc No.2),

4. Ex.P4: The copy of the current application information dated 13.07.2018 pertaining to complainant,
5. Ex.P5: The copy of the CIBIL Credit report dated 25.10.2018 in all 4 sheets (Doc.No.4),

6. Ex.P6: Another G-mail communication dated 20.12.2018,

7. Ex.P7: Copy of the letter dated 19.12.2018 written by opponent to complainant regarding the rectification of Cibil report for the loan A/c No.20141055671.

Witness examined for the opposite parties side: 

Documents marked for the opposite parties side:

-NIL-

     (M.B. SEENA)              (L.MAMATHA)                  (K.S.BILAGI)