Back
2021 Supreme(Ker) 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. Nagaresh, J.
Sujith Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
The Reserve Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.22108 OF 2020(K)
Decided On : 06-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.C.R.Jayakumar, Sri.Nobel Raju, Advs.
For the Respondent: Sri.C.Ajith Kumar, Sri. Millu Dandapani, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
Credit Information Company can make a correction, deletion or addition of the credit information, after such correction, deletion or addition has been certified as credit by the concerned credit institution. The 2nd proviso would indicate that the right over a credit information is solely that of the concerned bank or financial institution.
Headnote:
Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005- Section 21(3)- Updation of credit information is a statutory right of a borrower or client of a Credit Institution, in view of Section 21(3) of the Act, 2005.
Statement of facts:
The petitioner, who is a practising Lawyer, seeks to direct the 2nd respondent-Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited to recall the petitioner's entries in the CIBIL report of the petitioner and to direct the 2nd respondent to delete the adverse entries.
Finding of the court:
The failure of the 2nd respondent to act on Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) has grave consequences on the financial credibility and creditworthiness of the petitioner and since updation of credit information is a statutory right conferred on the petitioner under Section 21(3) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, this Court finds that relief should be granted to the petitioner
Result: Writ petition is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, who is a practising Lawyer, seeks to direct the 2nd respondent-Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited to recall the petitioner's entries in the CIBIL report of the petitioner and to direct the 2nd respondent to delete the adverse entries.
2. The petitioner states that he had availed a personal loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the 2nd respondent. The loan was sanctioned on 16.12.2006. The petitioner repaid the entire loan. The 2nd respondent, however, issued a notice on 12.08.2016 demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.42,895/-. The petitioner remitted the said amount as demanded by the 2nd respondent on 30.08.2016.
3. The 2nd respondent sanctioned to the petitioner an amount of Rs.37,337/-, on 16.07.2007. The petitioner repaid the said amount also. Yet the 2nd respondent demanded an additional amount of Rs.11,000/-, as per Ext.P3. The petitioner remitted the said amount also as evidenced by Ext.P4.
4. The petitioner wanted to avail a vehicle loan from another bank. The Manager was satisfied with the eligibility of the petitioner for availing loan. The Manager, however, did not sanction the loan pointing out that there are some adverse entries in the CIBIL report in respect of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner would state that the repayment of the loans availed by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent, may not have been made with the desired promptitude. However, the petitioner had remitted all the amounts demanded by the 2nd respondent which were alleged to be due, in the loan accounts of the petitioner. However, in spite of remittance of all the dues, the 2nd respondent made adverse reports on the basis of which the 3rd respondent entered adverse entries in their records. The action of the 2nd respondent in not communicating true state of affairs in respect of the petitioner's loan accounts has caused untold hardship to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is therefore liable to be directed to delete adverse entries in the CIBIL report of the petitioner, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The 2nd respondent-Bank did not enter appearance. The 3rd respondent-Company, however, filed a statement. The 3rd respondent stated that it is a Credit Information Company certified by the Reserve Bank of India. When information/data is submitted by a member-Bank or financial institution, the 3rd respondent enters the same in their records. The 3rd respondent is only a repository of information. The 3rd respondent is not bound to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the information submitted to them, by financial institution.
7. On receipt of notice of the writ petition, the 3rd respondent sent Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) mails to the 2nd respondent requiring to confirm whether the information provided by them in respect of the petitioner is correct or requires any correction. The 2nd respondent so far has not responded to the mails sent by the 3rd respondent. Unless the 2nd respondent reports any change in records maintained by them, the 3rd respondent will not be in a position to make any corrections.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
9. It is the credit report of the 3rd respondent by which the petitioner is aggrieved. Financial Institutions try to mitigate the risk of lending to borrowers by making a credit analysis on individuals and institutions applying for new credit facilities or loan. The analysis is normally based on a review of Capacity, Capital, Conditions, Character and Collaterals, called “the Five Cs” of credit. Financial Institutions in India rely on credit scores given by Credit Information Companies formed under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.
10. The 3rd respondent is a Credit Information Company functioning in accordance with the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The 3rd respondent gives credit sco
