State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager, Customer Services vs Dilipsingh Babusing Hajeri on 18 August, 2022
Dtd.18.08.2022 A/1690/2016
ORDER
BY Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP.1/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.07.06.2016 passed in CC/612/2013 on the file of Belagam District Forum.
2. Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order and heard.
3. It is found from the impugned order in particular para 12, wherein Forum below found as "....it is mentioned as post (WO) settled dtd.31.05.2012. This itself proves that the allegations of the Complainant against the OP.1 & 2 are proved by the Complainant", and thereby held it amounts to rendering deficiency in service and to get redress directed OP.1 to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh and additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides awarding Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation, and granted relief in favour of the Complainant directing OP.1 "to remove the remark of post (Written Off) settled, by communicating with the OP.2 within 30 days". In this regard, learned counsel for the Appellant submits his arguments begin with Annexure F certified by ICICI Bank that "instrument no.056646 amounting to Rs.1,850/- dtd.25.12.2008 is debited from a/c 017601520560 of Dilipsingh Hajeri and was favouring SBI card no.4317575075283268. The said cheque was presented by SBI in clearing. The said cheque has not been bounced from customer's account", and in fact it is not in dispute. Further would submit that as on 10.09.2009 outstanding balance of Rs.54,061.01/- and on 30.09.2009 payment received cheque no.275304 for Rs.12,000/- is towards one time settlement and to that effect, a settlement letter has been addressed to the Complainant on 07.09.2009. Accordingly corresponding to his credit card number, total outstanding has been shown as „zero‟ as on 19.10.2009, and it is shown „account zeroised under settlement‟ in respect of four entries. In this regard, learned counsel for the Appellant brought to the notice of this Commission as to the guidelines issued by RBI dtd.01.07.2013 which is published on 16.02.2011. It is in respect of CIBIL namely Consumer Credit Information System - Guide to Data Input File Format. It is not that, OP.1 bank acted in its own discretion basically showing the account as „written off (settled)‟, but followed the guidelines of table number/Field tag 22 of „Account Segment (TL)‟, wherein could see under „Field Name‟ Written-off and settled status, and under „Comments‟ at sl.no.04 Post (WO) settled, which was not followed by the Forum below while passing the impugned order. Further to be noted herein that at Field Tag 41 under „Field Name‟ Written-off Amount (total) - to be reported when written-off and settled status filed is reported as 02, 03 or 04 is followed by OP.1 bank.
4. It is found from the enquiry that, this consumer complaint raised before the Forum below during 2013 i.e. after lapse of almost 4 years from showing such account details and guidelines of RBI. In such circumstances, impugned order does call for interference of this Commission to set aside the order. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Consequently set aside the order dtd.07.06.2016 passed in CC/612/2013 by Belagam District Forum, and in the result ordered to dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.
5. The amount in deposit is directed to be returned to the Appellant with proper identification of his advocate.
6. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*