DATE OF FILING : 5.12.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of  January, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P    MEMBER

CC NO.346/2016

Between

Complainant       :   Jomy Jacob, S/o. Jacob T.J.,

Thayyil House,

Vengalloor P.O.,    

Thodupuzha, Idukki. 

(By Adv:  K.T. Abhilashkumar)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  The Branch Manager,

       ICICI Bank, 110, 

       Prakash Presidium, Uthamar, 

       Nungambakkam High R.d,

       Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 034.

  2.  The Branch Manager,

       ICICI Bank, 

       Thodupuzha Branch,

       Near Civil Station, 

       Thodupuzha, Idukki.

       (Both by Adv:  Lal K. Joseph,

P. Muraleedharan

& Prince J. Pananal)

  3.  The Branch Manager, 

       IDBI Bank, 

       Thodupuzha Branch,

       Thodupuzha – 685 584.

  4.  Trans Union CIBIL Ltd.,

       Credit Information Bureau

          (India) Ltd.,

       One Indiabulls Centre,

       Power 2A, 19th Floor,

       Senapathy Bapat Marg,

       Elphinstone Road, 

      Mumbai – 400 013.

     (By Advs:  Rakesh P. Dooa, 

& Mirza Aslam Beg)

 

 

(cont....2)

 

-  2  -

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

The complainant and hi wife Varsha Jose Joseph was working in Chennai from 27.9.2004 to 19.5.2005.  The wife of the complainant was worked in a software company and the said company paid her salary through the opposite party and the wife of the complainant was holding an account with the 1st opposite party.  The 1st opposite party issued a credit card voluntarily to the complainant's wife along with an add-on-card.  The add-on-card is issued in favour of the complainant, by the 1st opposite party which was never requested by the complainant from the 1st opposite party.  After resigning the job, the complainant and his wife shifted to Bangalore in 2005.  In 2009, the 1st opposite party debited Rs.1800/- from the SB account of the complainant's wife without her consent and when she enquired about it, the 1st opposite party informed that the credit card which was issued to her was used for a huge amount transaction and hence the debit was made as charge against it.  The complainant averred that, his wife never made such a transaction with the said credit card and was disputed immediately through e-mail to the branch manager of 1st opposite party on 17.10.2009.  She has also challenged the bank to produce any evidence in this regard by the 1st opposite party, never responded or take any action on her complaint.  In 2016, the complainant approached the 3rd  opposite party for a housing loan and his application was rejected by the 3rd opposite party on the ground that his name is entered in the CIBIL site as a defaulter.  Complainant further averred that, inclusion of his name in the CIBIL site is an illegal act done by the opposite parties 1 and 2, since there was no transaction with the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the complainant.  Being a reputed person and working a a head of the division of Wipro company, Bangalore, complainant has suffered much humiliation, loss of reputation and mental agony due to the act of  1st opposite party.

 

The complainant further stated that though he specifically reported it to the 1st opposite party that he never made any purchase by using the

     (cont....3)

-  3  -

add-on-card and hence he is not liable to repay the amount and if any such a purchase, the 1st opposite party may produce any evidence in respect of that.  But the 1st opposite party failed to clarify any transaction made by the complainant with the add-on-card.    The complainant further stated that, after imposing illegal liabilities upon him, the 1st opposite party has arrayed him in CIBIL, stating that Rs.83,130/- is overdue to the 1st opposite party, thereby disabled him to avail any kind of financial assistance from any of the recognised financial institution.  So, the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman against the opposite parties and obtained an order in favour of him on 15.12.2016.  Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties 1 to 4, complainant filed the petition seeking order from the Forum directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to take steps to remove the name of the complainant from CIBIL site.  The complainant also seeks a direction to be issued to opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.20000/- as compensation for the mental agony and Rs.10000/- as litigation cost.

 

The additional 4th  opposite party, the Trans Union CIBIL India Ltd added during the course of trial on the basis of an impleading petition filed by the complainant.

 

Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties 1 to 4 appeared and contested the complaint.

 

As per the version of the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complaint is not maintainable.  The complaint was filed by suppressing the material facts.  This Forum is barred to entertain this complaint as per section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005.  These opposite parties had updated the credit status of the complainant with the CIBIL during the year 2009.  The complainant had come up with this complaint only in 2016.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, since  CIBIL authorities are not arrayed as  party in the complaint.  Opposite parties further contended that, the complainant is not a consumer as a defined under the Consumer Protection Act, since the complainant has neither hired the service nor has purchased any goods from the 1st opposite 

      (cont....4)

-  4  -

party.  The relationship with the complainant and the opposite parties is that of a debtor and creditor.

 

The 1st opposite party further contended that, the wife of the complainant had approached them and applied for a credit card and an add-on-card to her spouse.  Based on her application, the 1st opposite party issued a credit card to her and an add-on-card to the complainant in the year 2005.  Moreover, Mrs. Varsha Jose Joseph has also availed an Auto Debit facility linked with her savings bank account for auto debiting the credit card due amount from her savings bank account with the 1st opposite party.  The complainant and his wife had utilised this card issued by the opposite parties 1 and 2 for their benefit.  The transactions in the card are secured by the position of the plastic card and the unique PIN number issued for the card holders.  The card holders are cautioned to keep the card as well as the PIN number out of reach of others.  All the transactions and purchases made by the complainant using the card are being honoured by these opposite parties and are paid to the respective third party merchants.  Since the complainant had refrained from initiating the investigation in this matter, it is evident that the transaction had been made by them.  These opposite parties are entitled to recover the amount already paid to the 3rd party merchants honouring the transaction made by the complainant.  Further contended that the subject matter credit card had been used for the purchase and the card holder is liable to repay the outstanding amount as per the terms and conditions of the credit facility.  This card had used in the month of March 2009 for purchasing goods for Rs.55700/- at a textile shop in Chennai.  The total amount outstanding the credit card account is Rs.84,104.18/- as on statement dated 23.12.2016.  It is evident that the credit card holder had utilised the facility.  Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite parties had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint.

 

As per version of 4th opposite party, there is no cause of action for the complaint against the 4th opposite party.  4th opposite party is a company under the provisions of the Credit Information Companies Regulation Rules 2006.  The opposite party is engaged in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling, collecting, processing and manufacturing of data 

(cont....5)

-  5  -

bank of credit information relating to both individuals and entries of all types, for the use of banks and other financial institution.  The 4th opposite party is a credit information company in accordance with the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 (CICRA).  The jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain complaint against 4th opposite party is barred by Section 31 of the said Act.  This opposite party is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and the veracity of any of the information submitted by the member credit institution.  This opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings.  The complaint is therefore to be dismissed.

 

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of the PW1, the complainant and Exts.P1 to P3 on the side of the complainant.  Ext.P1 is the computer print out of e-mail dated  17.10.2009.  Ext.P2 is the copy of credit information report.   Ext.P3 is the order of Banking Ombudsman dated 15.12.2016.  The opposite parties have not adduced any oral or documentarily evidence.

 

The points for consideration are :  1.  Whether the complaint is maintainable ?  2.  Did the complainant prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties  ?   3. The relief and cost  ?

 

The POINT :-  The complainant, Jomy Jacob was examined as PW1 in this case.  Admittedly the complainant and his wife resided in Chennai in relation with the job of his wife Varsha Jose Joseph, who was worked as a Software Engineer.  She was holding a SB Account with the 1st opposite party and in the account, 1st opposite party issued a credit card having No.4477473680127003 in the year 2015.  Thereafter the complainant and his family shifted from Chennai to Bangalore.  In the year 2009, the complainant's wife's SB Account with 1st opposite party was debited for Rs.1800/- and on enquiry, it was informed by the 1st opposite party that the credit card which was issued to her was used for a transaction amounting to some huge sum and hence the debit was made a charge against it.  This was immediately disputed by the complainant's wife  through e-mail to the 1st opposite party Branch Manager on 17.10.2009 (Ext.P1).  She have also challenged the bank to produce any evidence in this regard, but the 

       (cont....6)

-  6  -

1st opposite party never bothered to respond or take any action on her complaint.

 

Thereafter in the month of October 2016, the complainant submitted a loan application to 3rd opposite party and it was rejected on the ground that the complainant's name is added in the CIBIL site by the 1st opposite party.  Thereafter the complainant specifically reported to the 1st opposite party that the complainant never have made any purchasing using the add-on-card and hence he is not liable to pay any amount to the 1st opposite party and if any of such purchase has ever been made by the complainant, the 1st opposite party may produce any evidence in respect of that.  But the 1st opposite party miserably failed to produce any evidence showing the transaction corresponding to the CIBIL report.  Hence the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman and filed a complaint against the 1st opposite party.   There also 1st opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to counter the allegations of the complainant.  Hence the Banking Ombudsman decided the matter on 15.12.2016 observing that “The bank has not forwarded copies of the SOA although it was called for by us.  Only a statement of transactions was submitted.  The action initiated by the bank to recover its dues have not been submitted other than informing the normal collection follow up was done which is unlikely as the bank has neither issued demand notice or filed legal proceedings within the limitation period.  Further, considering that there was long overdue from 2009, the bank should have blocked the card and moved the same to written off base and initiated demand notice / legal proceedings.  The bank has done neither.”

 

Within this period, the complainant approached herein alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.  The allegation against the opposite parties are resisted by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties through  a detailed reply version.  In the reply version, opposite parties 1 and 2 specifically contended that, the subject matter credit card had used in the month of March 2009 for purchasing goods worth Rs.55700/- at a textile shop, in Chennai and the total outstanding amount in this credit card is Rs.84,104/- as on 23.12.2016.  Moreover, all the transactions and purchases made by the complainant using this card are being honoured by these opposite parties 

(cont....7)

-  7  -

and are paid to the respective 3rd party merchants.  The contention of the opposite party specifically denied by the complainants and the complainants challenged the opposite parties 1 and 2 to produce any evidence showing the use of this credit card.  In the year 2009 also, the wife of the complainant issued Ext.P1 e-mail letter challenging the act of the opposite party bank for deducting amount from her SB account.  This matter  again challenged by the complainant before the Banking Ombudsman.  

 

Eventhough the 1st and 2nd opposite parties raised some contention regarding the entry in the CIBIL report against the complainant, they miserably failed to produce it.  If the complainant had made such a transaction with a 3rd party merchant that will definitely reflected in the concerned records of the 1st opposite party bank.  If there is such an overdue in this account, what prevented the opposite parties to produce sufficient materials before the Banking Ombudsman as well as the Forum to substantiate their plea.  Being a reputed person, showing him as a defaulter in the public site like CIBIL will definitely tarnish the reputation and the credit worthiness  of the complainant.  This will definitely cause mental agony and humiliation to the complainant.  In this matter, we find that, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties miserably failed to adduce any evidence to convince the Forum that the complainant is a debtor or a  defaulter or the complainant is bound to pay any amount to the opposite party and also 1st opposite party has miserably failed to prove that how the name of the complainant is happened to entered in the CIBIL site as shown in Ext.P2 CIBIL report. 

 

At the same time, complainant has unnecessarily impleaded 4th opposite party in this case, in violation of the mandates of Section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005.  For the above reason, we find that the complaint is not maintainable against the 4th opposite party.  Hence the 1st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant adequately for the act of unfair trade practice on their part.

 

In the result, complaint allowed.  1st opposite party is directed to take steps to remove the name of complainant from the CIBIL site and also directed to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service 

(cont....8)

-  8  -

 

and mental agony and further directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2019

 

Sd/-

   SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -    Tomy Jacob.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  computer print out of e-mail dated  17.10.2009.  

Ext.P2         -  the copy of credit information report.   

Ext.P3         -  the order of Banking Ombudsman dated 15.12.2016. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

 

         Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT