IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 27th day of July 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.22/2021 (Filed on 29/01/2021)
Complainant : Renjith. S,
Kazhannukuzhiyil House,
SREESHILAM,
Karukachal, Kottayam – 686 540.
(By Adv: D. Zaibo)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. The Managing Director,
SREI Equipment Finance Limited,
No.32/2475, A1, 28 B,
Prateeksha, Ist Floor,
Palarivattom, C ochin – 682 025.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Changanassery, Kottayam.
3. The Managing Director,
M/s.Trans Union CIBIL Limited,
(Credit Information Bureau(India) Limited)
One World Centre,
Tower 2A, 19th Floor,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Elphinstone Road,
Mumbai – 400013.
(By Adv: Preetha.P)
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Crux of the complainant is as follows :
On March 2007, the complainant purchased a JCB 3DX Excavator with number KL-33-3983 exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The vehicle was purchased by availing a loan of Rs. 18,89,000/- from the first opposite party by entering into contract with them agreeing to repay it within 47 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 48,750/- each. At the time of disbursement of the loan amount itself, the first opposite party had collected 47 cheques for Rs.48,750/- each drawn by the complainant on Federal Bank, Nedumkunnam branch towards payments of the EMIs. The opposite party undertook to present the cheques as and when the payments are due and the complainant agreed to ensure that the cheques are cleared on presentation. The first opposite party presented all the 47 cheques and had collected the entire EMI amounts. There was no occasion whereby the cheques were dishonoured on presentment. Even after the full and prompt repayment of the entire EMIs, the first opposite party used to issue notices demanding further amounts from the petitioner. On 03-10-2019 also the first opposite party has sent a demand notice making false and untenable claims demanding Rs. 1,77,893/- towards overdue charges and PLR/SBR charges. The entire amount as per the contract has already been paid by the complainant and no further amount is legally or contractually due to the first opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get the NOC from the first opposite party to remove the hypothecation noted in the RC book without making any further payment. His name has been included in the negative CIBIL Score due to the above illegal action of the first opposite party and he is entitled to get it removed also. But since the first opposite party neglected to give the NOC inspite of repeated requests he could not sell the vehicle. The vehicle is being kept idle for the last so many months and has now totally lost. If the complainant was able to dispose it in its running condition, he could have obtained a handsome price for the same. The complainant suffered huge financial loss, mental agony and hardship due to the unjust and illegal actions of the first opposite party and he is entitled to be compensated by the first opposite party. The action of the first opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate and all other necessary documents for removing the hypothecation noted in the RC book and direct the first and third opposite parties to do all the necessary formalities to ensure that the complainant’s name is removed from the negative CIBIL score on account of the alleged debt towards the first opposite party. It is further prayed to direct the second opposite party to remove the hypothecation noted in the name of the first opposite party in the RC book of the vehicle and to direct the first opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the complainant.
After admission of the complaint notice was duly served to all the opposite parties. Insptie of receipt of notice except the third opposite party others neither cared to appear before the Commission nor to file version. Hence the first and second opposite parties are declared as ex-parte.
Version of the third opposite party is as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable on the ground that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The third opposite party is engaged in the business of creating, string, retrieving, compiling, collating, collecting, processing and maintaining a data bank of credit information relating to both individuals and entities for all types whether incorporated or not, for the use of banks, financial institutions dealing with the distribution of credit. The third opposite party functions as a credit information company under the provisions of CICRA read with The Credit information Companies Rules 2006 and The Credit Information Companies Regulations made under CICRA. Section 18 of CICRA governs the settlement of disputes with the third opposite parties and section 31(b) of CICRA bars the jurisdiction of this Commission and all courts from adjudicating upon disputes against third opposite party. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and third opposite party.
Any information in the data base of credit information or change in the credit information can only be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 21(3) of the CICRA. Thus the third opposite party cannot unilaterally make correction to the credit information of the complainant. The third opposite party is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and veracity of any of the information reported/submitted by the member credit institutions, Such responsibility lies with the reporting institutions as per CICRA and the rules & regulations made there under.
In the instance case on the basis of information and identifiers provided in the complaint, the third opposite party carried out detailed analysis of complainant’s credit information as available in its database and upon scrutiny it was observed that the loan account number 32289 was being reported with no adverse remark. However it was observed that loan account number 33568 reported by the first opposite party is reporting over dues of Rs. 8,71,275/- which adversely impacted the complainant’s CIR.
The third opposite party never issued any notices on 3-10-2019 to the complainant demanding further amounts from the complainant. The complainant never approached the third opposite party as alleged in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the third opposite party.
To prove his case, complainant has tendered in evidence his proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of payment schedule of the loan. Ext.A2 is the statement of account of the complainant which is maintained with Nedumkunnam Branch of the Federal Bank. Ext.A3, copy of the statement of account of the complainant which is maintained with Nedumkunnam branch of the Federal Bank for the period 7-9-2007 to 31-7-2007. Ex.A4 is the notice issued by the first opposite party. No oral or documentary evidence on the part of the third opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
(1)Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party? (2) If so what are the reliefs and costs?
POINTS 1 & 2 :
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the point number 1 and 2 together.
During arguments complainant has argued that he had purchased a JCB 3DX Excavator with number KL-33-3983 by availing a loan of Rs. 18,89,000/- from the first opposite party. It is further argued that contract with the first opposite party is that to repay the loan amount within 47 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 48,750/- each. The said argument of the complainant is proved by Exhibit A1 repayment schedule of the loan amount. On perusing Exhibit A1 we can see that the repayment was started on 22-03-2007 and shall be completed on 22-01-2011. It is further proved by Exhibits A2 and A3 statement of account of the complainant which is maintained with Nedumkunnam branch of the Federal bank that Rs.48,750/- is regularly withdrawn by the first opposite party through the cheque up to 22-01-2011. As discussed above the loan amount should be repaid with 47 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 48,750/-, there is no evidence before us to prove that the complainant had defaulted any one of the above said instalments. On perusal of Exhibit A4 notice we can see that there is no overdue instalments towards the loan account. However the first opposite party vide Exhibit A4 demanded Rs.1,33,906/- as overdue charges and Rs.78,640/- as PLR/SBR charges. It is pertinent to note that in Exhibit A4 it was stated by first opposite party that there was no cheque bouncing charges. On going through this we cannot accept that in the absence of overdue instalments and cheque bouncing charges the first opposite party is entitled to recover any amounts from the complainant towards the overdue charges and PLR/SBR charges. The first and second opposite parties are remained ex-parte so there is no evidence before us to disbelieve the contention of the complainant.
As we know, Credit Information Bureau India Limited 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.
The CIBIL report reflects summary of loan outstanding, balance of loan account depends upon the borrower. Learned counsel for the third opposite party argued that there are specific provisions under CICRA, namely Section 18, Section 31, Section 21(3) and Section 30. Further, he argued that there is no privity of contract between complainant and third opposite party. Complainant is not a consumer of third opposite party. Third opposite party does not carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain in Kottayam.
Now the major controversy is that whether the complainant is having outstanding with regard to loan account with first opposite party at Kottayam, as per CIBIL report. As discussed earlier we found that there is no outstanding with regard to loan account with first and second opposite parties. In version the third opposite party submitted that the complainant is disputing the account information regarding the loan Account No. 32289 and the said loan account was being reported with no adverse remark. The third opposite party produced the copy of the CIR report. However there was an overdue of Rs.8,71,275/- in loan Account No. 33568 with the first opposite party.
Another contention of the complainant is that due to non-issuance of NOC by the first opposite party he cannot remove the hypothecation endorsement noted in the RC book of the vehicle and without removing hypothecation endorsement he cannot sell the vehicle for its market price. As there was no amount due in the loan account the first opposite party is duty bound to give NOC to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that inspite of issuing NOC the first opposite party has issued Exhibit A4 notice to the complainant after more than 8 years from the expiry of the loan repayment period. The second opposite party who is the registering authority cannot remove the endorsement regarding the hypothecation without No Objection Certificate from the financier. Thus we are of the opinion that the non-issuance of the NOC to the complainant by the first opposite party amounts to imperfection and inadequacy in service which is to be maintained by the service provider and amounts deficiency in service.
Resultantly, in the light of our above observations and findings the present complaint is partly allowed with following directions to first and second opposite parties. Complaint against the third opposite party stands dismissed.
We herby direct the first opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate and all other necessary documents for removing the hypothecation noted in the RC book of the vehicle bearing No. KL-33- 3983 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
We hereby direct the second opposite party to remove the hypothecation noted in the name of First opposite party in the RC book of the vehicle bearing No. KL-33-3983 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
We hereby direct the first opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of this litigation.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of July, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Copy of Repayment Schedule of loan issued by the
Ist opposite party
A2 - Copy of Statement of account of the complainant
maintained with Federal Bank, Nedumkunnam
for the period 01/03/2007 to 30/09/2007
A3 - Copy of Statement of account of the complainant
maintained with Federal Bank, Nedumkunnam
for the period 07/09/2007 to 31/01/2011
A4 - Notice issued by the opposite party dated 03/10/2019
for Rs. 212546.33
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
