Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/203/2016

Trilochan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Varinder Arora Adv.

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	203 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	21.03.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	11.08.2017

 

 

 

 

Trilochan Singh s/o Shingara Singh, H.No.941, Phase-11 (Sector 65), Teh.Mohali, Distt. SAS Nagar.     

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Standard Chartered Bank, SCO 137-138, 1^st Floor, Sector 9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager/Branch Manager.

    2^nd Address:  Standard Chartered Bank, Cards Service Centre, 1^st Floor Express Building, 9-10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002

2]  M/s Besteam Enterprises, SCO No.90, Sector 40-C (FF), Chandigarh through its Chief Officer/Branch Manager.

3]  Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited, Hoechst House, 6^th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai through its Chief Officer.

4]  IndusInd Bank Ltd., Ground Floor,  SCO No.321-P, Sector 9, Panchkula Haryana through its Manager/Branch Manager.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Varinder Arora, Counsel for complainant

            Sh.H.S.Bhatia, Counsel for OP No.1

 None for OP No.2.

 Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.3.

 None for OP No.4.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant was issued a Credit Card by the Opposite Party No.1 Bank in the year 2006 having Saving Account NO.110168200019090, but the complainant never used/swiped the said credit card, but still the complainant in the year 2007 received a notice from Opposite Party No.2 with regard to outstanding amount. It is stated that the complainant in order to evade any problem, settled the said account of OPs No.1 & 2 on 19.4.2007 by depositing Rs.1564/- (Ann.C-1).  However, when the complainant applied for a Truck Loan with IndusInd Bank, in the year 2016, it was rejected as his name is reflecting in CIBIL (Ann.C-2). It is also stated that the complainant was shocked to notice that inspite of the fact that he had already settled the matter earlier with OP No.1, still it raised another unethical and unwarranted amount of Rs.43,889/- against the credit card of the complainant without being used by him even for once.  It is submitted that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 without giving any opportunity to the complainant and without any justified cause illegally forwarded the name of the complainant in defaulter list of OP No.3 (Ann.C-2), as a result, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and took objection that the complaint is barred by limitation.  It is submitted that the alleged charges levied on the complainant is for the transactions made by the complainant.  It is also submitted that the statement of account of the credit card and the offer letter dated 2.4.2007 for settlement are self-explanatory which establishes that the dues of the bank were not paid leading to declaration of the account of the complainant as NPA and there his name is reflecting in the defaulting persons. It is further submitted that every Bank has to send the name of every defaulter to CIBIL under the notification of RBI.  It is stated that the settlement dated 19.4.2007 arrived between both the parties was a constrained settlement since the credit card dues were unsecured and the OP Bank has no other option but to accept the payment whatever is paid by the complainant.  It is also stated that in terms of guidelines of the RBI in order to remove the name of the complainant from CIBIL, the complainant has to make the payment of total outstanding dues and the OP Bank has not received its total outstanding dues of Rs.3128/- as on 2.4.2007 along with other charges and interest from 3.4.2007. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.2/Besteam Enterprises has also filed short reply stating that it worked as Collection Agency for the Standard Chartered Bank, Chandigarh till March, 2007.  It is stated that the Bank used to give the answering Opposite Party the name of the defaulting customers and also the amount due against them and in the case of complainant, the bank had sent his address and outstanding amount of Rs.1564/-, which as per instructions of the Bank had been collected from the complainant vide cheque No.240628, dated 20.4.2007 in favour of the Bank.  It is stated that Opposite Party No.2 never issued any notice to the complainant for recovery for Rs.43,889/-.  Denying other allegations, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

         The Opposite Party No.3 has also filed reply stating that the complaint is not maintainable against it.  It is stated that CIR merely reflects the information submitted to it by its member credit institutions and Opposite Party No.3 issues the Credit Information Report (CIR) in a standard format and it does not create information or provide inputs thereon of its own and that Opposite Party NO.3 acts as a repository of credit information.  It is also stated that Opposite Party No.3 can make correction, deletion or addition of the credit information only after such correction, deletion or addition has been certified as correct by concerned credit institution. It is further stated that Opposite Party No.1 has since provided Opposite Party No.3 with a change request for updating the information with respect to the Applicant’s credit card account bearing No.110168200019090 held with OP No.1 and OP No.1 advised OP No.3 to reflect the status as “Written Off” and OP No.1 advised Opposite Party No.3 to reflect on the Credit Information Report, the “Current Balance” and the “Amount Overdue” as “Zero” and accordingly, the applicant’s Credit Information Report now reflects changes as stated above.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint qua OP No.3.

         The Opposite Party No.4/IndusInd Bank did not file any reply and its counsel appended a note on the complaint itself that it did not want to file reply to main complaint as nothing has been alleged or claimed against Opposite Party No.4.

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by respective OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is the main controversy in the present complaint that the accounts once settled in the year 2007 by depositing an amount of Rs.1564/- against one time settlement, strangely swollen upto Rs.43,889/- barring the complainant from getting loan from any of the financial/banking institution for reflecting his name as defaulter in CIBIL records. 

 

7]       Ann.C-1 placed on record is evident of the fact that the complainant entered into one time settlement with the OPs and settled his account by paying Rs.1564/- against one time settlement offer made by the OPs vide letter dated 2.4.2007.  The document (Ann.C-2) placed on record by the complainant i.e. report of CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited) showing the current balance in the account of the complainant to the tune of Rs.43,889/-, apparently shows the malafide of OP No.1.  The OP No.1 Bank instead of submitting the correct status report of the complainant to the appropriate authority i.e. Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited, after receiving the payment from the complainant under one time settlement against their offer, opted to leave the matter in abeyance. This omission on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 is against the norms set out by their Nodal Agency.  The non-supply of correct status report about the account of the complainant by Opposite Party No.1 resulted, that in the record of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited, an amount of Rs.43,889/- is reflecting as balance against the complainant which further affected the complainant’s right to get a loan facility from any financial/banking institution in future.

 

8]       The Para No.11 of the reply filed by Opposite Party No.3 reveals that the omission of Opposite Party No.1 bank got rectified after receiving notice of the present complaint and on allegedly becoming aware of the error committed.  We deem it worth to reproduce the Para No.11 of the reply filed by Opposite Party No.3 as under:-

11.     ………Opposite Party NO.1 has since provided Opposite Party No.3 with a change request for updating the information with respect to the Applicant’s credit card account bearing no.110168200019090 held with Opposite Party NO.1 and Opposite Party No.1 has advised Opposite Party No.3 to reflect the status as “Written Off” and Opposite Party No.1 advised Opposite Party No.3 to reflect on the Credit Information Report, the “Current Balance” and the “Amount Overdue” as “Zero”. Accordingly, the Applicant’s Credit Information Report now reflects changed as stated above.”

 

9]       The above reproduced para is quite enough to conclude that the Opposite Party No.1 rendered deficient service towards the complainant by not uploading the correct status of the complainant, thereby causing him harassment.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not even utilized the Credit Card once and still he had been forced to make payment under one time settlement for Rs.1564/-, which he deposited just to avoid any harassment. Moreover, the Opposite Party NO.1 had also not placed on record any statement of account showing the usage of the credit card in question made by the complainant, which further supports the claim of the complainant.  Thus it is clear that on account of deficient act of Opposite Party NO.1 the complainant has to suffer harassment and has been forced to indulge in litigation. 

 

10]      From the above it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant has been addressed as his factual status has been uploaded in the records of CIBIL and now nothing is reflecting due against him in the record of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited in respect of the credit card in question bearing No.110168200019090. Now the complainant is seeking compensation as well as litigation expenses for the harassment suffered due to deficient act of OP No.1 and unwanted litigation imposed on him due to said deficient act. We are of the opinion that in the given facts & circumstances of the case, the complainant is fully entitled to be compensated for the deficient services of Opposite Party No.1 which certainly caused him great harassment, as well forced him to indulge into unwanted litigation. Therefore, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party NO.1 with following directions:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the parts of OP No.1;
2. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount mentioned in sub-para (a) above from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with direction as at sub-para (b) above.  

 

11]       However, the complaint qua OPs NO.2, 3 & 4 stands dismissed.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11^th August, 2017        

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER