IMPORTANT POINT
Rectification – Considering the fact that the complainant himself had been a defaulter, the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint partly and has given directions to the Company for rectification of information to the CIBIL, with regard to complainant’s credit card.

ORDER

Dr. Monika Malik, Member—This order will govern disposal of aforementioned

two appeals No. 461/2022 and 664/2022, as similar facts are involved in the matter. However, for the sake of convenience facts are taken from appeal No. 461/2022, unless otherwise stated.

2. This appeal by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) is directed against the order dated 26.4.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.2, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’) in Complaint Case No. 156/2021, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by him.

3. Briefly put the facts of the case are that the complainant had an IRCTC SBI Credit Card No.4377485654058379 with a credit limit of Rs.1,63,000/- with the SBI Cards and Payment Services Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Company’), from the year 2013. In the year 2017 the said card was blocked due to over limit. Inspite of bringing the overdue amounts by paying all charges the card was not restored. It is alleged by the complainant that the Company unilaterally terminated the agreement. In June 2019, the Company filed a pre-litigation in National Lok Adalat, Indore but before that the Company reported him defaulter to CIBIL, while there was a dispute about outstandings and the matter was pending. The complainant alleged that he was reported as defaulter to CIBIL without following RBI guidelines and inspite of collecting dues, whatever were there. The complainant asked for removal of defaulter status from CIBIL but no redressal was given to his grievance. He therefore approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

4. The Company in its reply submitted that there has been an agreement executed between the parties and the District Commission does not have jurisdiction to solve the dispute between the parties. The subject card was blocked and there is a dispute of accounts between the parties, hence also it cannot be tried before the consumer courts, in summary proceedings. It is submitted that the complainant had been a defaulter and since November 2017, dues of Rs.1,82,969/- as a bill amount, on his credit card is pending, therefore his card was blocked. The complainant was intimated regarding listing of the matter before National Lok Adalat. It is therefore submitted that there has been no deficiency in service on part of the Company.

5. The District Commission partially allowed the complaint and directed the Company to rectify the information provided by them to CIBIL within a period of 30 days. Rs.2,000/- as costs has also been awarded.

6. Heard.

7. The complainant, who is connected through video conference, argued that the complainant had to undergo hardships on account of intentional and illegal wrong reporting done by the Bank. His account was written off and he was given a status of defaulter for past three years, without following the RBI guidelines. He, therefore suffered loss of business due to rejection of loan by the banks. The District Commission failed to appreciate that the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent act and was brought into force because of the high handedness of Big Corporates and therefore, it ought to have considered the complainant’s case and should have awarded appropriate compensation to him. The District Commission has erred in holding that the complainant was also guilty of non-payment of dues and has overlooked the fact that not an iota of evidence was brought forward by the respondents. He argued that the impugned order deserves to be modified and the complainant be compensated adequately by setting aside the reporting of defaulter “written off” status from the CIBIL and to close the card account and also compensate him with a sum of Rs.15 lakhs with interest, along with litigation charges.

8. Learned counsel for the Company argued that the District Commission has erroneously directed for rectification of defaulter status in the CIBIL when there is no role of the Comp