BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Unison Drugs Private Limited, through V.K.Uppal, Managing Director 791, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  India Bulls Financial Services Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO No.337-338, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2]  The Managing Director, India Bulls Financial Services Limited, SCO No.337-338, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

3]  Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited, Hoechst House, 6^th Floor, 193, Backbay Reclaimation, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   

MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA 

  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Arun Kumar, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep suri, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.Animesh Sharma, Counsel for OP-3

PER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         The complainant was granted a loan of Rs.15.00 lacs by OPs No.1 & 2, out of which an amount of Rs.33,708/- were charged towards processing fee, Rs.781/- towards pre-EMI and also an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards insurance from Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited, without his consent, and in all an amount of Rs.14,45,511/- were disbursed to the complainant vide letter dated 10.7.2008. The complainant on receipt of said letter, refused to take the loan as the same was not sanctioned as per the commitment given by their representative and asked the OPs No.1 & 2 vide letter dated 17.7.2008 to settle the account on or before 28.7.2008, whereupon OPs assured to settle the matter amicably and in that process the complainant cleared two installments of the loan, but when nothing was done by OPs, he instructed his banker to stop payment from 1.9.2009 to 01.07.2012. In response to the foreclosure request of the complainant, the OPs vide letter dated 26.9.2009 informed him, that Rs.12,17,030/- as on 26.9.2009 was due against him. The complainant deposited the said amount with OPs as is clear from letter dated 26.9.2009. 

          Thereafter in March, 2011, the complainant applied for a loan in ICICI Bank Limited for Staff Bus, but the same was rejected on the ground that his name figures in the defaulter list of CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited).  Later the complainant came to know that his name was sent to CIBIL by the OPs.  As such, the complainant had to purchase the bus by arranging the amount at his own. It is averred that OPs intentionally, deliberately and malafidely sent the name of the complainant to CIBIL even after clearance of his loan on 28.9.2009, just to cause him loss, harassment, mental tension, agony, loss of business reputation and lowered the image in the market as well as the public at large.  The complainant took up the matter with OPs No.1 & 2 as well as CIBIL & RBI and legal notices were also sent to them.  But despite all that, the OPs No.1 & 2did not bother to remove his name from the defaulter’s list of CIBIL.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed.

2]       OPs No.1 & 2 filed joint reply and admitted the disbursement of the loan to the complainant on the basis of agreement.  The amount of interest and other charges were charged as per the agreement.  It is stated that the complainant was contacted on receipt of letter dated 24.8.2009 and lower amount was offered towards one time settlement.  But the complainant refused to pay the full dues payable under the agreement. Hence a settlement was reached at a lower amount than what was due.  It is also stated that granting or non-granting of a loan, is the sole prerogative of that institute.  It is submitted that the name of the complainant in CIBIL is not attributable to the settlement with the Bank, but was there earlier also, on account of various facilities availed of, by him from time to time. The removal of his name was never the part of the settlement and it cannot be done by the OPs. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

3]       OP-3 (CIBIL) also filed reply submitting therein that the data reflecting in the Credit Information Report of answering OP-CIBIL is as provided by Member Credit Institutions.  It is the responsibility of Credit Institutions to submit updated, accurate and complete information to CIBIL.  It is stated that in this case also, India Bulls Financial Services Limited has submitted the data and confirmed the report credit information, to which the answering OP acted accordingly.  The answering OP cannot modify any data in its database without concerned credit institution sending the updated records. Hence, Credit Institutions needs to send the instructions with updated records for uploading the same into the data base.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint qua OP-3 be dismissed.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]       Admittedly, the loan availed of & disbursed to the complainant, had already been repaid/settled. 

7]       The main grouse of the complainant is that even after closing his loan account with OPs No.1 & 2, they still send his name to the CIBIL, as a result, his image was defamed. Besides this, his loan application was also rejected by the ICICI Bank Limited on this ground. Therefore, the complainant had to suffer harassment, mental agony and financial loss due to the above deficient act of OPs No.1 & 2.  

8]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OPs NO.1 & 2 argued that since the complainant refused to pay the full dues payable under the agreement, so a lower amount was offered and as such, a settlement was reached at a lower amount than what was due.  It is also contended that grant & non-grant of a loan is the sole prerogative of the concerned institute. 

9]       The ld.Counsel for the OP NO.3 contended that in the present case, India Bulls Financial Services Limited had submitted the data and confirmed the Report Credit Information, to which the answering OP acted accordingly.  The answering OP cannot modify any data in its database without concerned credit institution sending the updated records.

10]      After going through the facts & circumstances of the case, perusing the documents on record and hearing the parties, it has been made out that the complainant made complete payment, as was asked for by OPs No.1 & 2 against the loan availed from it.  This fact is crystal clear from the letter dated 26.9.2009 issued by OPs NO.1 & 2, placed at Page No.25 of the paperbook, which reads as under:-

    “This is to inform you that on receipt and realization of Rs.12,17,030/- (Twelve Lac & Seventeen Thousand Thirty Rs.Only) your captioned Business Loan account shall stand as closed in Full and Final and nothing shall remain due and payable by you thereafter.” 

         In this very letter the payment details, so made by the complainant, has also been mentioned by the OPs No.1 & 2, to the following effect:-

11]      Moreover the above said payment is not disputed by the OPs NO.1 & 2.

12]      In the CIBIL Report, placed on record by the complainant, at Page NO.30, against the Business Loan Account, sanctioned for Rs.15.00 lacs, the Status has been shown as WRITTEN OFF/SETTLED.  The OPs NO.1 & 2, for updating the said report/status of the complainant, taken the plea that since the amount was deposited as a one time settlement, which was lower than the amount actually payable & due, thus the loan was treated as Settled.  This plea of the OPs No.1 & 2 is totally vague, untenable & unjustifiable. Once the payment has been made by the complainant against the loan in question, as asked for by the OPs NO.1 & 2, the status should have been updated as CLEARED.  Such an act of OPs No.1 & 2 clearly constitute deficiency in service on their part. Resultantly, the complainant had to suffer harassment and mental agony.

13]      Henceforth, keeping in view the foregoing discussion, findings and entirety of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice, is writ large & apparent on the part of OPs No.1 & 2.  Therefore, the present complaint, having lot of merit, weight and substance, must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2.  The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing his harassment & mental agony, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

         This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.09.2011 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs, as aforesaid.

14]      However, the complaint qua OP NO.3 (CIBIL) stands dismissed.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.