The court emphasized the necessity of joining all relevant parties for a complete resolution of the dispute regarding loan information inaccuracies.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant / complainant challenging the order of the District Consumer Forum - II Visakhapatnam dated 22.2.2016 in CC.86/2014.

2. The appellant had taken a housing loan of Rs. 5,50,000/- from the respondent bank in the year 2001 vide loan account No. 046208NC00000865 and cleared said loan with interest on 30.10.2006. It is alleged by the appellant that in the CIBIL Consumer Credit Information Report, an amount of Rs. 2,59,632/- is shown as outstanding loan due from the appellant.

Immediately she approached the respondent on 29.10.2009 with a request to remove the said information in the CIBIL report and the respondent issued a letter dated 29.10.2009 to the appellant that it has escalated the matter of CIBIL report showing outstanding balance of Rs. 2,59,632/- in the account of the appellant. Since the respondent has not withdrawn the outstanding shown in the CIBIL report, the respondent is unable to get any other loan from any other bank, she got issued a legal notice on 18.11.2013. When there was no relief from the opposite party, the appellant filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to withdraw the wrong information shown in the CIBIL report and damages.

Having admitted the discharge of loan by the appellant the respondent pleaded that it had sent information regarding discharge of the loan by the appellant to the CIBIL and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. It is also further pleaded that if the appellant is aggrieved, she has to proceed against CIBIL for not updating information provided by the respondent and the appellant ought to have joined the CIBIL as party to the proceedings who is a necessary and proper party and complaint is bad for non - joinder of necessary party.

3. The Forum after considering the material on record dismissed the complaint.

4. The Forum observed in its order that Ex. B1 document itself speaks that the complainant obtained two subsequent loans after clearing the 1st housing loan on 30.10.2006 and there is no fault on the part of the opposite party since Ex.A1 was given by CIBIL Authorities that the complainant is due for an amount of Rs. 2,59,632/-. It is also further observed that the complainant is not maintainable as the CIBIL Authorities are not made as a party to the complaint.

5. We have perused the record and heard the arguments on both sides.

6. Counsel for the appellant Sri Muralidhar Patnalk has argued that after the loan was closed on 30.10.2006, the respondent bank has not furnished information to CIBIL, therefore the CIBIL has shown that there is an outstanding balance of Rs.2,59,632/-. He further contended that the CIBIL which is an independent body and there is no contractual obligation between the appellant and CIBIL and the appellant cannot approach the CIBIL for any redressal. He has further argued that CIBIL is not necessary party and the Forum without giving an opportunity to the appellant straight away dismissed the complaint for non - joinder of CIBIL.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent bank Sri A. Jayaraju has argued that Ex.Bl document itself would show that the appellant has obtained two loans subsequent to the Ist loan which was cleared in 2006 and the necessary information was furnished by the respondent bank to the CIBIL and if there is any mistake committed by the CIBIL the appellant has to approach against CIBIL and Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint for non - joinder of CIBIL as a party.

8. We have perused Ex.A1 CIBIL Consumer Credit Information Report which disclosed that an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- was sanctioned towards loan to the appellant and an amount of Rs. 2,59,632/- is shown as current balance as on 20.9.2013. The