State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Ram City Union Finance Pvt Ltd. vs Abdul Razak on 27 July, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/697/2021 ( Date of Filing : 14 Sep 2021 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/07/2021 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/73/2018 of District Gulbarga) 1. Shri Ram City Union Finance Pvt Ltd. Bilgundi Honda, 2nd floor, Opp Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga Branch, Gulbarga 585102. 2. Shri Ram City Union Finance Pvt Ltd, Karnataka Head Office, Akshodaya, 259/31, 2nd floor, 10th cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560027. 3. Shri Ram City Union Finance Pvt Ltd. Customer care, Mumbai. Appellants 1 to 3 Reptd by Deputy Manager Legal, Authorised Signatory and Power of Attorney Holder, SugandaRaj V, S/o Late Venkataramaiah, aged 55 yrs. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Abdul Razak S/o Shaik Rukmuddin, aged 31 yrs, R/o H.No.5-993/20/52, Umar Colony, Near Mohamadiya Masjid, Azadpur road, Kalaburgi 585104. 2. Experian Credit Information Co of India Pvt Ltd, P O Box 9096, Gurgaon(E), Mumbai 400063. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 27 Jul 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing:14.09.2021 Date of Disposal:27.07.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 27th Day of July 2023 PRESENT Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO. 697/2021 ORDER
BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by OP in CC/73/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kalaburagi, aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2021. (The parties herein after will be referred as to their rank assigned by the Forum below) The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard R1/complainant and counsel for appellants/OP Nos.1 to 3 through VC.
One Mr.Abdul Razak, S/o Shaik Rukmuddin is a complainant. He raised Consumer Complaint alleging OPs rendering deficiencies in service on the ground that he had purchased a two wheeler vehicle Honda Dio bearing registration No.KA-32/EQ-4547 from Bilgundi Honda Showroom, Kalaburagi, availing financial assistance of OP1. OP1 agreed to advance finance at Rs.45,900/-, which shall be repayable in EMI of Rs.2,492/- per month on or before 07th day of every month commencing from October 2017 for a period of 02 years. He was paying EMI through his bank account maintained with SBI Om Nagar Branch, Kalaburagi. He was punctual in making payment of monthly EMI till he received statement of account from his bank. He alleged against OP1 due to their technical problem could not withdraw monthly EMI for the month of December 2017 to their account. OP1 advised complainant to make payment of EMI in cash and he has agreed the said advice and credited the amount to their account. There is no fault on the part of complainant but OP Nos.1 to 3 without his knowledge and information has made ECS thereby damaged his status and reputation as a defaulter in the market. He is a Civil Site Engineer having good reputation in the field of construction and the Real-Estate in and around Kalaburagi City. His CIBIL score in the market has come down due to the fault of OPs. In his complaint has sought for taking action against OPs, claimed compensation of Rs.60,000/- and to punish them under Consumer Laws. Further sought to make arrangement to prepare structure of the customers and display on notice board for the benefit of customer without damaging their entity and status and also instruct to respond to the customers regarding their accounts and updating the same. Further sought for a directions to OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
OP Nos.1 to 3 contested the complainant, while OP4 placed exparte. It was the contentions of OP Nos.1 to 3 that they have not damaged the reputation of complainant, since complainant has not honored his monthly EMI and he was default in payment. OP Nos.1 and 2 are not responsible for damage of reputation of complainant in the market field. There is non-payment of 03 EMIs. As per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement under clause 6.15 "none-presentation of cheques, ECS/ACH on the point of lender for any reason whatsoever shall not in any manner affect the liability of the borrower". As per agreement executed between complainant and OP Nos.1 and 2 complainant is still liable to pay Rs.7,452/- as on 15.09.2018 and was liable to pay future agreed amount of Rs.37,356/- and also to pay Rs.2,500/- towards bouncing charges and overdue interest of Rs.1,252/-. On such dispute and differences and claims arising out of the agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and his complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, Forum below held and enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence of complainant, Ex.P1 to Ex.P34, evidence of Legal Officer of OP Nos.1 to 3 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R8, thereby formulated as many as 05 points, of which point no.1, 2 and 4 are recorded in the affirmative while recorded in the negative finding on point no.3, thereby on point no.5 as per final order by allowing the complaint in part against OP Nos.1 to 3 holding them jointly and severally liable to deposit Rs.15,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation before District Forum on or before 23.10.2021, failing which amount shall carry interest @ 06% p.a. from 24.10.2021 till realization and after depositing such amount complainant is entitle to receive the same from the District Forum and dismissed the complaint against OP4. It is this order being assailed in this appeal by OP Nos.1 to 3 contending that the Forum below has committed grave error in passing the order without understanding as to how the CIBIL rating will be given and on what basis OP4 has given its report which is the subject matter of complaint against whom the Forum below dismissed the case and held OP Nos.1 to 3 are liable, which is contrary to facts and law, is liable to be set aside.
The Forum below directed OP Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally to deposit Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation specifying the date for deposit, failing which amount shall carry interest @ 06% p.a. OP Nos.1 to 3 are one entity while OP4 is Experian Credit Information Company of India Pvt. Ltd., who has placed exparte and the Forum below dismissed the complaint. The main grievance of complainant would be updating of his CIBIL rating by Experian Credit Information Company of India Private Limited. According to complainant, OP4 has not taken any care and continued the same CIBIL score. This appeal is filed by OP Nos.1 to 3 and no appeal or cross-appeal is filed by complainant against OP4, aggrieved by dismissal of his complaint. The Forum below recorded negative finding on point no.3, since complainant failed to prove that there is any deficiencies on the part of OP4. According to complainant, on 07.12.2017 he had deposited EMI through his bank and the same was not withdrawn by OP1. He says on his enquiry, OP1 reveals that there was a technical problem for not withdrawing EMI for the month of 07th December 2017 and because of this non withdrawal, his CIBIL rating has been seriously affected and in this regard the Forum below accepted contentions of complainant that CIBIL score of complainant was affected due to the mistake committed by OP1, since substantiated from Ex.P6 letter dated 06.06.2018. It has come in the enquiry with regard to conversation held in between complainant and OP4 that OP4 informed complainant that Experian Credit Information Report is based on the information collated from their banks/credit institutions with whom complainant had credit relationship. The information collated provides information of their credit card or loan accounts including complainant repayment behavior in the past 36 months. This information is also extracted by Forum below from Ex.P22 email dated 24.09.2018 and the Forum below held OP Nos.1 to 3 have given information with regard to the particulars of loan accounts including complainants repayment behavior in the past 36 months and the matter involved in this complaint would be with regard to the transaction of 07th December 2017. As per Ex.P22 email, OP4 clearly informed complainant the information collated provides information of his credit card including his repayment behavior in the past 36 months. We have to emphasize repayment behavior in the past 36 months. It is not that OP Nos.1 to 3 have alleged specifying none payment of EMI dated 07.12.2017 but they alleged in respect of subsequent EMI's for the month January 2018, February 2018 and July 2018. Therefore, the contentions that his CIBIL and credit score is affected mainly due to mistake of OPs as they tried to collect the EMI through his bank. Even from Ex.P22 a single non-payment of EMI or such belated payment could not affect the CIBIL ratings, since bankers have to collate with OP4 furnishing information as to repayment behavior of a customer/loanee in the past 36 months which in our view was not properly appreciated by the Forum below.
Learned counsel for appellant would submit that they have no role in passing of information to the financial market and they have not damaged the reputation of complainant, since complainant had not honored his monthly EMI in defaulted in payment which would not cause any damages for complainants reputation. The OPs have shown that complainant had failed to make 03 EMIs due on 08.1.2018, 07.02.2018 and 07.07.2018, since the request sent to SBI returned with balance insufficient. According to appellants, complainant is still liable to pay Rs.7,452/- as on 15.09.2018 and is liable to pay the future agreed amount of Rs.37,356/- as on 15.09.2018 and also bounce charges of Rs.2,500/- as on 15.09.2018 and overdue interest of Rs.1,252/- as on 15.09.2018, yet the Forum below without perusing contents of letter in Ex.P22 dated 24.09.2018 wrongly concluded OP Nos.1 to 3 have rendered deficiency in services resulting in reduction of the CIBIL score of complainant by supplying information has considerable force. It is therefore, we are of the view counsel for appellant rightly submitted CIBIL score normally will not be reduced for non- payment of 01 EMI but based on repayment behavior of complainant within 36 months, has some considerable force, was not at all appreciated by the Forum below. It is also submitted that ACH has to be handover to the lender bank about 04 weeks before the due date of EMIs. This was informed to the customer to pay the December 2017 EMI by cash as the ACH mandate will be effective only after 04 weeks of handing over the mandate. In loan cum hypothecation agreement entered between complainant and OP1 which provides for mode of repayment by the borrower either by bank issue of post dated Cheques/DD/Bankers Cheque/Electronic Clearing System (ECS)/Automated Clearing House (ACH) and as per 6.15 the "non-presentation of the cheque/ECS/ACH on the part of lender for any reason whatsoever shall not in any manner affect the liability of borrower" and if complainant failed to establish that for non-payment of one EMI which was paid in cash as requested as per Ex.P6 was alone affected his CIBIL score.
It has also come in the enquiry as per bank statement enclosed there was no ECS or cheque presented on 07.10.2017, but cheque no.823712 for Rs.2,492/- was debited on 09.11.2017 and further ECS of Rs.2,492/- is debited to the account as per statement enclosed which corroborate the information supplied by banker from statement of account. We can also find debiting of ACH charges to his account suffice to hold that affecting of his CIBIL score is due to 07th December 2017 EMI has to be ruled out. As per Ex.P14 complainant's CIBIL score was 657 and this report is created on 15.04.2017. On 31.10.2017 for the month of October his CIBIL score was Zero. As per Ex.P15 as on 21.05.2018 CIBIL score was 596. As on 31.03.2018 his payment history could be seen for the month of March, February and January for the year 2018 and also in respect of 2017. As per Ex.P16 it was 596. As per Ex.P17 it was 639. Thus if these documents have to be considered conjointly contention of complainant that his CIBIL score has been affected due to non collection of EMI due on 07.12.2017 from his banker has to be held not proved. However, Forum below without examining evidence as a whole heavily come on the OP Nos.1 to 3 that they rendered deficiency in service which has to be held contrary to facts and law and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently set aside the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kalaburagi and in the result dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost.
The Amount in deposit is directed to be refund to the appellant with proper identification by his advocate.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady Member Judicial Member *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER