State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Limited vs Ranvir Singh on 12 May, 2017
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. : 128 of 2017
Date of Institution : 09.05.2017
Date of Decision : 12.05.2017
1. The Manager, HDFC Bank , Cards Division, Lattice
Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041
2. The Manager, HDFC Bank, SCF 5, Rani Talab, Jind -
126102.
3. HDFC Bank, Ceebros Building, 110, NM Road,
Aminjikarai, Chennai 29
......Appellants
V e r s u s
1. Ranvir Singh s/o Sh.Ram Singh, R/o H.No.2325 -B,
Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.
2. Citi Enterprises through its Manager, SCO No.39,
Second Floor, Sector 40, Chandigarh.
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,
through its Director Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg,
169, Backbay Reclaimation, Mumbai
----Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 against order dated 06.01.2017 passed by
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.
Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 370/2014.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellants. P E R J U S T I C E J AS B I R S I N G H ( R E T D . ) , P R E S I D E N T Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 have filed this appeal against order dated 6.1.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh ( in short the Forum only), vide which complaint filed by respondent No.1/ complainant was partly allowed. 2
2. Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that he got issued a credit card through OP No.1 in the year 2010. He used to make small transactions with that card and regularly used to repay the amount spent. Through the said card, he withdrew an amount of Rs.13,000/- and repayment was made through installments as per messages received from the bank . Thereafter, he deposited the entire amount under protest. However, he was not given any bank statement to show whether he had paid in excess or defic ient amount. He received letter dated 15.6.2013 asking him to settle credit card dues. Again the amount was paid under protest. However, despite making requests, 'No Due Certificate' was not issued.
It was his further case that the above said OP s also sold him one general insurance policy through OP No.4 without his consent and charged premium more than Rs.6000/ -, without any justification. He was got blacklisted at CIBIL(Credit Information Bureau India Limited) w hich made it difficult for him to get any further loan etc. It so happened when he wanted to raise a commercial loan which was given at higher rate of interest. He made requests to the OPs to get his name removed from CIBIL and even legal notice sent by him failed to get the needful done. Hence, consumer complaint bearing No.370 of 2014 was filed before the Forum on 22.7.2014. 3
3. Upon notice, reply was filed controverting averments made by the complainant. It was specifically stated that the complainant was not making repayment as per schedule fixed, as such , was in default. His account was settled on 15.6.2013 as one time settlement, on payment of Rs.50,500/- against the amount of Rs.67,005/ -. The remaining amount was waived of. Qua insurance policy, it was stated that the complainant had enjoyed its benefit and at this stage he cannot object to the same.
Similar reply was filed by other OPs.
4. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties , documents on record, and arguments address ed, observed as under ;
"It is the claim of the OP Bank that the complainant entered into one time settlement qua the dues reflected in his account statement, but the perusal of the letter dated 15.6.2013 reveals that it was an offer of o ne time settlement made by the bank wherein they also mentioned the repayment schedule and the complainant, as per his allegation, was forced to repay the amount and accordingly the amount was repaid under alleged undue influence. As after the repayment, t he complainant vide application dated 04.2.2014 under an RTI Act tried to enquire about the dues in actual outstanding against him and the record of payments made by him, during the usage period of the card in question. The record reveals that the complai nant was never ever supplied with 4 the said information. Though the complainant asked for the information regarding his dues after making the payment under the one time settlement offer, but on the contrary the OP Bank was duty bound to supply the informat ion sought for. The OP Bank despite appearing before the Forum has also not placed on record the 'Specific Account Statement' to clearly show that what amount the complainant utilized/exhausted against the credit limit and what was repaid by him, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank.
As regards the issue of status of the complainant reflecting in the records of 'CIBIL' the OP Bank has claimed that as the complainant failed to repay the amount in time and committed defa ult in the repayment of the amount thus, the information was accordingly supplied to CIBIL and thereafter also supplied the information regarding the settlement of the matter, which resulted in reflecting the complainant's status as 'Settled' in the CIBIL records. Admittedly, the 'Settled' status of the complainant in the records of the CIBIL affected badly and barred his further prospective to get any financial assistance from any bank.
In our considered opinion, the Opposite Party has ignored the instructions of RBI bearing NO.RBI/2008-2009/100, BOD. FSD. BC.23/24.01.011/2008 -09, July 23, 2008, placed on record by the complainant in regards to the reporting the name of the defaulter to 5 CIBIL/Credit Information Companies, which states as under: -
In terms of paragraph 6.2 (c) of the Master Circular on Credit Card Operations of banks (Circular No.DBOD.FSD.BC.6/24.01.011/2008 - 2009 dated July 1, 2008), before reporting default status of a Credit It is Card holder to CIBIL or any other desirable Credit Information Company that the authorised by RBI, banks should banks are ensure that they adhere t o a
17. made to procedure duly approved by their Reporting follow a VI Board including issuing of sufficient to uniform CIBIL notice to such cardholder about the CIBIL/Credit method of Issues intention to report him/her as Information reporting to defaulter to the Credit Information Companies CIBIL/Master Company. The procedure should Card also cover the notice period for such International reporting as also the period within Negative which such report will be withdrawn List in the event the customer settles his dues after having been reported as defaulter. These procedures should be transparently made known as part of the MITCs. The above instruction are reiterated.
In the present case, the OP Bank nowhere issued any notice to the complainant while sending information to the CIBIL declaring him as a defaulter and complainant never was given opportunity to clear his account before sending his name in the defaulter list, which apparently is non - adherence of the RBI instructions, as reproduced above. Such in-action of the OP Bank resulted in causing harassment to the complainant for the reason that despite repayment of all the dues against the one time settlement offer, his status got reflected as 'Settled' in the records of CIBIL, which further 6 barred his further prospective to get any financial assistance from any bank. The status of the complainant as 'Settled' in the record of CIBIL, happened due to in -action of the OP Bank, so they are responsible to get the status of the complainant cleared from CIBIL records.
The dispute in regards to the issuance of the 'NDC' the OP Bank has failed to produce on record any copy of 'No Due Certificate' allegedly been issued to the complainant and since the complainant has prayed for the same in his complaint, supported by a duly sworn affidavit, so it is believed that the OP Bank has not issued 'No Due Certificate' to the complainant, which in our opinion the OP Bank is liable to issue."
5.. It was specifically noted that when information was sent to CIBIL, no notice was sent to the complainant. Noting non-adherence to the instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, it was rightly said that there was deficiency in providing service. It was further said that status of the complainant was continued to be wrongly shown as 'settled' in the record of CIBIL but it happened due to inaction on the part of the OPs. It was further said that 'No Due Certifi cate' was not issued in favour the complainant despite making a request in that regard. After hearing Counsel for the p arties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Forum is quite justified and needs no interference in the order, under challenge . 7
6. Not only as above, this appeal is barred by limitation of 48 days. In the application seeking condonation of delay, even not a slightest explanation has been given as to how delay was caused. It was only said that the process in taking perm ission in filing appeal took time. No detail has been given as to when the process was started, who dealt with the same and who consumed time in granting such minor permission. We find no justification to condone the delay. The application, thus, stands dismissed.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
8. Certified copies of this order, be sent to th e parties, free of charge.
9. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
12.05.2017 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY)
Js MEMBER
8
ST ATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.128 of 2017)
Argued by: Er.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellants. Dated the 12th May, 2017 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs .
(DEV RAJ) (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.) (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER