BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

    18^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Lakshmana Char

S/o Sogirappa.D,

Aged about 56 years,

R/at No.345, Mahaveer Fortune Apartment, G.Hosahalli,

Bengaluru-91.

By Adv.Sri.Pramod.S.Magaji

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. The Assistant General Manager

State Bank of India,

Head Office: St.Marks

Road, Grievances Cell, Bengaluru-01.

2. The Assistant General Manager

State Bank of India

RACPC, No.5/1,

Yalahanka New Town

Branch, Prestige Star

Building, 1^st Floor,

Ring Road, Yalahanka,

New Town, Bengaluru-65.

By Adv.Sri.G.M.Rudraswamy

ORDER

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction against the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 (herein after called as OPs) to correct the loan amount details in the CIBIL reports; to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for not following the RBI guidelines; to pay cost and pass such other order as deem fit in the circumstances in the interest of justice.                                            

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainant submits that, since he was in great need of some financial help approached the OP banks and availed the home loan of Rs.21 lakhs during 2014 and the said home loan was protected by insurance financed by OP.2 bank. Since he got the urgency of another loan approached one of the financial institution, however his application got rejected over the counter itself due to ‘overfunding’ as per the documents shown in the CIBIL report. When he checked with CIBIL department, it was shocking to know that there are double entries made in the CIBIL report for the loan availed from the OP bank including insurance amount. OP.1 bank suggested to approach CIBIL department to get this correction. He sent a complaint dtd.20.03.20 to the Banking Ombudsman. Inspite of many follow ups either through email/over call and personal visits, there has been no action taken either from the bank or the Banking Ombudsman. Hence he issued legal notice dtd.02.07.20. But the issue never sorted out by the bank. On 12.08.20, the Banking Ombudsman has issued final guidelines to the OP.1 & 2. The Complainant has suffered financially and his legal rights have been infringed to avail any financial assistance due to incorrect and wrongful statements disclosed by the OP banks in the CIBIL records. The acts of the OPs are amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OP.1 & 2 did appear and filed version. OPs in their version submits that, the Complainant has availed housing loan of Rs.21 lakhs and housing loan insurance of Rs.2,31,005/- with OPs during the year 2014 by mortgaging the Flat No.345 in the apartment ‘Mahaveer Fortune’. During the year 2019, he defaulted in repayment of the said housing loan, hence OPs issued a demand notice dtd.08.11.19 U/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In Complainant’s CIR report, it is reflecting that, the Complainant had availed loans like personal loan, gold loan and other loans from various other financial institutions. The CIR reports dtd.23.07.20 and 13.10.20 issued by M/s.Trans Union CIBIL ltd., wherein error of double entries nowhere reflecting. Subsequent to the receipt of the said demand notice, the Complainant sent requests to rectify the duplication in mentioning of housing loan in his CIBIL report as his credit score has reduced and consequently, is unable to avail loans from other banks. The OPs in their replies dtd.21.01.20 and 06.06.20 informed that the bank has no role to play in drafting the report and requested to take up the matter with M/s.Experian Credit Information Company of India Pvt., Ltd., (ECICIPL) to rectify the error/duplication. The OPs themselves even reached out to the said company requesting them to look into the issue and rectify the duplication error in their credit reports. In response to their request, the said company by email dtd.01.08.20 indicated to the OPs that the error/duplication has been rectified. The same was also intimated to the Complainant. Though the issue resolved, the Complainant filed this complaint in order to make unlawful gain and to drive the OPs in an unnecessary litigation. The Complainant has utterly failed to establish any sort of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against the OPs. Hence on these grounds and other grounds OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents among them some are marked. OP.1 filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents among them some are marked.  Both filed written arguments. Heard. We have gone through the available materials on record.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order?

        6. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- In the negative

Point No.2:- As per final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OPs. The complainant has sought for relief to direct the OP Nos.1 and 2 to correct the loan amount details in the CIBIL reports, directing the OP to pay the compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and other reliefs for which he is entitled to.

8. The main question that crops up for our consideration is whether the said OPs committed any error with regard to loan account details in the CIBIL reports.  To falsify these contentions, OPs in its version at para No.26 to 28 stated as under:-

Para 26:- It is submitted that the Ops, even reached out to the M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India Private Limited on behalf of the complainant, requesting them to look into the issue and rectify the duplication error in their credit reports.  It is submitted that the M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India Private Limited in response to the request, indicated to the OPs that the error/duplication has been rectified.  The same was also intimated to the complainant.

Para 27:- It is submitted that as stated above, the Ops have no role in drafting the Credit report.  The OPs merely provide the requisite information in regard to the credit availed by the customers.  In the present case, there is no error or mistake on the part of the OPs in providing the aforesaid information.  The duplication/error made in the credit report is under no circumstances attributable to the Ops.  Further, the OPs do not have any authority to make corrections to the credit report.  It is to be noted that the OP immediately upon receipt of information regarding the duplication in the report requested the complainant to reach out to the concerned credit information company which issued the report and informed the complainant that the OPs have no role to play in the duplication or the error.  Furthermore, in light of the Ops plights, the bank even reached out to the credit information companies i.e. M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India Private Limited, on behalf of the complainant, requesting them to rectify the errors made in the credit report.  It is pertinent to mention here that the error in the credit report is already rectified on the request made by the OPs.

Para No.28:- It is submitted that the present complaint does not survive so far as the first relief is concerned as the double/duplicate entry of loan account of the complainant has already been resolved on 01.08.2020 by the said M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India Pvt. Ltd., itself, i.e. before the receipt of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission notice.  A copy of the E-mail correspondence dated 01.08.2020 sent by M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India Ltd., is hereby produced document No.R-8.

9. If the above stand taken by the Ops is taken into consideration, the said error is to be corrected by the M/s Experian Credit Information Company of India Pvt. Ltd., but not the OPs.  In the instant case, the alleged double/duplicate entry of the loan account of the complainant has already resolved on 01.08.2020 which can seen on going through document No.8 marked as Ex.B.8 which reads thus:-

Thank you for contacting Experian Credit Information Company of India Private Limited. 

We would like to inform you that the below OLM request has been completed.

For any further queries please feel free to mail us on Ticket No.CAS1112890

When the grievance is already redressed by the concerned authority i.e. M/s Experian Credit Information of India Pvt. Ltd., Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP has no legs to stand.  Hence, complaint is dismissed as devoid of merits.  Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.

 10. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

                O R D E R

The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed as devoid of merits.

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.    

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 18^th day of September, 2021)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant dated.18.11.20

Sri.Lakshmana Char, the Complainant

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP.1 dated.24.12.20

Sri.Guru Raj Rao, the Assistant General Manager of OP.1   

Copies of Documents produced by OP