Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/266

Rajiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :           266 of 2017

Date of Institution :        16.08.2017

Date of Decision :            4.02.2019

Rajiv Kumar aged about 44 years son of Sohan Sing resident of # 190, Guru Nanak Colony, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

           .....Complainant

Versus

 

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. Branch Faridkot thorugh its Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd, ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vododara 390007, Gujarat, India through its MD.
3. Trans Union CIBIL (Formerly Credit Information Bureau India Ltd), One Indiabulls, 19^th Floor, Tower 2A-2B, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

.....OPs

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2,

 Sh Amrit Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-3.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

cc no. 266 of 2017

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.80,0000/-on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses.

 2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having saving account with OP-1 and in June, 2017, he received a call from Op-1 and 2 stating that complainant has used the credit card of OP-1 and Op-2 and an amount of Rs.2,18,113.28 is due towards him against credit card. On this, complainant submitted that he has never applied for any credit card and thus, question of using the same does not arise at all, but they again made call on next day to complainant stating that he has used the credit card and amount of Rs.2,18,113.28 is due towards him. Complainant sent e-mail to them and then, they assured to revert the same within  two days, but they again sent mail to him that his credit card has been despatched on 16.03.2017 and asked for confirmation that he has received the same. Complainant confirmed that he has not received any credit card and submitted the documents demanded by OP-1 and 2. After that complainant vide letter dated 30.06.2017 disclosed all facts to OPs that amount in question does not relate to him in any way and OP-2 felt sorry and assured to resolve the matter within few days. It is further submitted that in July, 2017, complainant issued a cheque in favour of one Sandeep Kumar Jain for Rs.6000/-, but OP-1 and 2 bounced the same  for insufficient funds though there was sufficient amount in the account of complainant to clear the same. Thereafter, OP-1 debited Rs.6,813/-from the account of complainant against credit card facilities. Complainant also has saving account with IDBI and he applied for over draft to IDBI Branch, Faridkot, but they refused to provide him over draft facility due to negligence on the part of OPs as name of complainant was shown as defaulter by

cc no. 266 of 2017

OP-3. Credibility of complainant was shaken as he was declared defaulter by OPs and they lowered his reputation and due to this he could get fulfilled his demand from IDBI Bank. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused much harassment and inconvenience to him. He has prayed for heavy compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                             Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.08.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                   On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and 2 filed written reply wherein they admitted before the Forum that credit card was issued in the name of one Rajiv Kumar of Delhi but inadvertently, they made phone call to complainant. It happened due to mismatch of particulars because of similarity in names. They have denied the other allegations of complainant and asserted that they asked the complainant to come at the earliest and discuss the matter, but complainant did not approach them and thereafter, they received a letter dated 30.06.2017 from complainant that he has never applied for credit card nor have he received the same and on receiving his letter, they initiated investigation and found that one Rajiv Kumar of New Delhi has availed the credit card facility but due to mismatch of particulars of complainant and said Rajiv Kumar, they sent the outstanding report to CIBIL in the name of complainant. After thorough investigation, they have withdrawn the demand for outstanding amount of said credit facility against complainant and has also sent the modified report to CIBIL for absolving the complainant from said liability and CIBIL Report of complainant has been corrected.  It is further averred that amount of Rs,.6,813.99 was also debited from the account of complainant due to inadvertence and that amount has also been duly

cc no. 266 of 2017

credited in his account. Cheque of complainant was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and complainant also has knowledge of this fact that there was no balance in his account at that time. It is averred that amount of Rs.6813.99was wrongly debited from his account but now, they have withdrawn the demand of claiming said amount and have also credited Rs.6,814/-in the account of complainant. amount of Rs.413/- and Rs.158.22 has also been credited in his account which were debited on account of MAB charges. all the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

5                                      OP-3 also filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP-3 and he is not their consumer. It is averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint they have not taken any consideration from complainant and even complainant has not availed any services on consideration from them. It is averred that any such like matters are required to be settled by arbitration or conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 this Forum has no authority to exercise any jurisdiction to hear the same. It is further averred that Op-3 does not carry on any business or hold any office in Faridkot for obtaining any gain and thus, no cause of action arises against them. OP-3 is a Credit Information Company and is governed under the provisions of CIRCA and their functioning is not liable for any harm caused to complainant. It is asserted that Credit Information appearing in the Credit Information Report furnished by OP-3 is the aggregate of information submitted to it. Any unilateral correction of credit information as sought by complainant would have rendered them liable for penalization under CICRA. OP-3 is not liable for accuracy, completeness and voracity of any information submitted to them and

cc no. 266 of 2017

such responsibility lies with reporting institutions providing such information to OP-3. Op-3 acts as a repository of credit information submitted to it by member credit institutions and it was the responsibility of OP-1 and Op-2 to submit updated, accurate and complete information to a credit information complaint i.e OP-3. All the allegations of complainant are related to OP-1 and 2 who submitted wrong and incorrect information to them. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                             The ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant  Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikas Wadhwa Ex. OP-1,2/1 and document Ex OP-1,2/2 and then, closed the evidence. OP-3 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Pankaj Patil Ex OP-3/1 and documents Ex OP-3/2 to 4 and also closed the evidence.

8                                              Ld Counsel for complainant argued complainant is having saving account with OP-1. He received a call from Op-1 and 2 stating that complainant has used their credit card facility and amount of Rs.2,18,113.28 is due towards him against credit card. Complainant requested them he has neither applied for any credit card nor have availed any facility thereof and also sent an e-mail regarding this to them but they again sent mail to him that his credit card has been despatched on 16.03.2017 and asked for confirmation regarding receipt of the same. Complainant confirmed that he has not received any credit card and submitted the documents demanded by OP-1 and 2. After that complainant vide letter dated 30.06.2017 disclosed all facts to OPs that amount in question does not

cc no. 266 of 2017

relate to him in any way and OP-2 felt sorry and also assured to resolve the matter within few days. Main contention of complainant is that in July, 2017, he issued a cheque worth Rs.6000/-in favour of someone, but OP-1 and 2 bounced the same for insufficient funds though there was sufficient balance in the account of complainant to clear the same. Thereafter, OP-1 debited Rs.6,813/-from the account of complainant against credit card facilities. Complainant also has saving account with IDBI and he applied for over draft to IDBI Branch, Faridkot, but they refused to provide him over draft facility due to negligence on the part of OPs as name of complainant was shown as defaulter by OP-3. Credibility of complainant was shaken as he was declared defaulter by OPs and due to this he could not get fulfilled his demand from IDBI Bank. It also lowered his reputation. All this caused great harassment and mental torture to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 7.

9                                    Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of letter dated 30.06.2017 written by complainant to OP-1 and 2 clearly requesting them to redress his grievance. Ex C-4 is the copy of complaint dated 2.08.2017 filed by complainant before SHO, Faridkot seeking redressal of his grievance. Ex C-5 and Ex C-6 are copies of e-mails showing correspondence occurred between complainant and OP-1 and Op-2. Ex C-7 is copy of legal notice served by complainant to OPs. Through his affidavit Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his grievance and has made prayer for justice.

10                                           Ld Counsel for OPs-1 and 2 submitted before the Forum that due to inadvertence and mismatch of particulars with one Rajiv Kumar of New Delhi, they sent the outstanding report to CIBIL in the name of

cc no. 266 of 2017

complainant. But after thorough investigation, when they noticed their mistake, they withdrew their demand for outstanding amount of said credit facility against him and then also sent the modified report to CIBIL for absolving the complainant from said liability and CIBIL Report of complainant has been corrected.  It is further averred that amount of Rs.6,813.99 was also debited wrongly due to inadvertence, but that amount has also been duly credited in his account. Cheque of complainant was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and complainant knew that there was no balance in his account at that time. It is averred that amount of Rs.6813.99was wrongly debited from his account but after correction, they withdrew the said demand and duly credited Rs.6,814/-in the account of complainant. Amount of Rs.413/- and Rs.158.22 has also been credited in his account which were debited on account of MAB charges. OP-1 and OP-2 admitted that all this happened due to inadvertence and due to similarity in the names of complainant and one Rajiv Kumar of New Delhi and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                                            Ld Counsel for OP-3 argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part as OP-3 is mere a Credit Information Company and is being governed under the provisions of CIRCA and their functioning is not liable for any harm caused to complainant. It is asserted that Credit Information appearing in the Credit Information Report furnished by OP-3 is the aggregate of information submitted to it. OP-3 is not liable for accuracy, completeness and voracity of any information submitted to them and such responsibility lies with reporting institutions  i.e OP-1 and OP-2. OP-3 acts as a repository of credit information submitted to it by member credit institutions and it was the responsibility of OP-1 and Op-2 to submit updated, accurate and complete information to them. Allegations of complainant relate to OP-1 and 2 who

cc no. 266 of 2017

submitted wrong and incorrect information to them. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12                                       The case of complainant is that he is having saving account with OP-1 and he never applied for credit card facility from OP-1 and 2, but OP-1 and 2 made calls to him asserting that his credit card has been dispatched to him and amount of Rs.2,18,113.28 is due towards him against said credit card. Complainant through several verbal requests and vide letter dt 30.06.2017 explained them that he never applied for any credit card and withdraw the demand raised for Rs.2,18,113.28. Even OP-1 and 2 debited Rs.6,813.99 from his account and even dishonoured a cheque worth Rs.6000/-issued by him to one of his creditors. Complainant was in need of money and is also having account with IBDI Bank and when he approached IDBI Branch Faridkot to avail some over draft facility, complainant was denied the same on the ground that OP-1 and OP-2 sent wrong information regarding his account to OP-3 and OP-3 put his name in the list of defaulters. Complainant had to suffer embarrassment and harassment due to this act of OPs. In reply, OP-1and OP-2 admitted their fault and prayed that all this happened due to mismatch of particulars regarding name of complainant with some Rajiv Kumar of New Delhi and due to inadvertence all this occurred. They asserted that after thorough checking, when they realized their fault, they withdrew the said demand and sent correct updated record regarding account of complainant to OP-3. Plea taken by OP-3 is that they act a repository and only OP-1 and OP-2 are responsible for sending correct and updated information to them. there is no fault on their part.

   13                                 Ld Counsel for complainant has produced cogent and sufficient evidence on record to prove the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-3 is

cc no. 266 of 2017

copy of letter dated30.06.2017 written by complainant to OP-1 and 2 to redress his grievance. Ex C-4 is copy of complaint moved by complainant to SHO, Faridkot wherein he narrated his entire grievance. Ex C-5 is copy of correspondence that occurred between complainant and OPs.  It is observed that complainant haw done his best to get justice by bringing the matter in the notice of OPs as well as Higher Officials, but unfortunately, his grievance could not be redressed by them. Ld Counsel for complainant has relied upon judgment given by Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chairman/CEO Corporate Office, Bajaj Finance Ltd and Ors Vs Samir Kumar Kundu 2014 (1) CLT 213 : 2013 (54) R C R (Civil) 232 wherein it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 2 (1) (g) Banking-Appellant-Finance Limited mistakenly enlisted the complainants name in the CIBIL list as a defaulter in making repayment of loan – Further, it also appears from the record that the Respondent complainant repaid the loan availed of by himself in stipulated period – But, the mistake on the part of the Appellant – Finance Limted was responsible for the Respondent being deprived of getting credit facility from the Standard Chartered Bank – Further, everyone had access to the CIBIL site – Showing the name therein as a defaulter definitely lowered the prestige of the complainant/respondent – Therefore, the mistake on the part of the Appellant – Finance Limited has lowered the dignity of the respondent in the esteem of public- Held that, it will be just and proper if the OP Bank pays the complainant 2,00,000/- towards compensation and 10,000/-towards litigation cost.

 14                                             In the light of evidence and documents brought before the Forum and case law produced by ld counsel for complainant, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 in sending wrong information regarding account of complainant to OP-3. It is duly admitted by OP-1 and 2 in their written reply as well as during arguments that they

cc no. 266 of 2017

did it inadvertently due to mismatch of particulars of complainant with some person of same name. Documents placed on record by complainant are fully authentic and beyond doubt and there is no reason to doubt the pleadings of complainant. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP-1 and OP-2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by them besides Rs.3,000/-as cost of litigation. OP-1 and 2 are further directed to send correct information regarding account of complainant to OP-3 and OP-3 is also directed to remove the name of complainant from the list of defaulters and update the account status of complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 4.02.2019

 

(Param Pal Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                       President