The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act and the relevance of the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, Section 21.

ORDER

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 17.8.2016 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur ('the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 180 of 2016.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that petitioner/cornpainant for his self-employment and livelihood of his family had applied for a loan with ICICI Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Raipur for his shop and the loan was sanctioned in his favour. In relation to the loan when the petitioner/complainant went to ICICI Bank he was informed that his name is seen in the "CIBIL" list of defaulters and that his loan from Bank of Baroda was pending whereas no loan was pending as he had ever taken any loan from Bank of Baroda. The petitioner so informed ICICI Bank but they said that till the time his name was reflecting in the CIBIL list for a pending loan payment, till then it would not be possible to give him the loan. The petitioner then filed a complaint with Bank of Baroda and CIBIL and also informed CIBIL about the same through e-mail on 3.9.2013. A reply was sent by CIBIL to the petitioner on the same day but no action was taken. Then the petitioner through his Advocate sent a notice to Bank of Baroda by registered post on 25.9.2013 and a copy of it was sent to the Head Office and corporate office of Bank of Baroda and intimation was also given to the Reserve Bank of India. No reply was sent either by the bank or the Reserve Bank. The petitioner did not have any account in Bank of Baroda and neither had he ever taken any loan from Bank of Baroda. Hence the unpaid loan shown by opposite party No. 1-bank against petitioner was unfair and clearly fell under the category of deficiency in service.

3. Respondent/opposite party No. 2 without inquiry and without any information had put the name of the petitioner in the defaulters list which was unfair and the above act clearly also fell under the category of deficiency in service. The petitioner was an account holder in ICICI Bank and because the Bank of Baroda and CIBIL had shown his name as a defaulter petitioner's loan was not sanctioned. Therefore, the petitioner, on the basis of above has prayed for grant of compensation as follows:

"That the complainant prays for the following relief:

1. The OP may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 15,00,000 to the complainant,

2. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000 may be awarded for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental harassment.

3. Cost of the suit and any other relief which the Hon'ble Forum deems fit may be awarded,"

4. Respondent No. 1/opposite party submitted a written statement and stated that on being personally contacted by the petitioner and on hearing his complaint of the entry of his name in the defaulter list of CIBIL, they had inspected their records but as the same would take time, to quickly resolve the concern of the petitioner, had requested to the petitioner to sign and provide an in lemnity bond to them to enable them to give an NOG. The petitioner on receiving the proforma of the indemnity bond provided by the bank had said that he would read it, understand it and then sign it and give it later on. However, the petitioner thereafter never contacted the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 further stated that the petitioner, in the past, might have taken a bail or guarantee for a loan taken by one of his relatives or known persons and on the nonpayment of the loan by the original debtor or by the petitioner the then officers might have sent the name of the petitioner to the defaulters list in 2003-04. As it was a transaction of approximately 10 years back and the petitioner had not directly taken the loan hence searching for the above loan record in which the petitioner was involved, was extremely difficult. The petitioner knew about the above facts very well and was trying to take the advantage of the same. Even after all this, the petitioner, with the