IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 36042 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

JOSEPH K.F AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. FRANCIS K.P, KUTTAPPASSERY HOUSE, KANDAKKADAVU P.O, ERNAKURAM DLSTRICT, COCHIN - 682008 BY ADV.

SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES RESPONDENTS:

1 THE DIRECTOR, TRANS UNION CIBIL LIMITED ONE INDIA BULLS CENTER, TOWER 2A-2B

19TH FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTONE ROADS, MUMBAI - 400013

2 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD REPREESNTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 159-A, C.S.T ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI, PIN - 400098 3 BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF BARODA,PALACE ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN., PIN - 682002

4 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.6507, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695033 BY ADVS.

SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR SRI.K.ANAND-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

=========================

W.P.(C).No. 36042 of 2023 ==========================

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2023

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to remove the “adverse remarks” in Ext.P4 report settled by the 1^st respondent – TransUnion CIBIL Ltd.

('CIBIL', for short); and to consequently correct his credit history.

2. Pertinently, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, through their learned Standing Counsel – Sri.C.Ajith Kumar. Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the same require a full reading, for which, it is extracted as under:

6. Before giving a paragraph – wise reply to the Writ Petition, the 1^st Respondent would like to set out what transpired in the present matter. Respondent No. 1 submits that the Petitioner had initially approached 1^st Respondent vide online dispute portal dtd. September 29, 2023 bearing dispute ID CDS23102023000963 disputing the personal information of the Petitioner i.e. name, address, email ID and phone no. reflecting in his CIR. On receipt of the said grievance from the Petitioner, 1^st Respondent did detailed analysis and replied to the Petitioner vide email dated October 23, 2013 that the dispute with regard to name, phone number and email id has been updated after confirming the same from the reporting member banks. Further, with regard to the disputed address, the petitioner was asked to approach 2^nd Respondent and Union Bank of India since the said banks have confirmed no change in their reporting. 1^st Respondent submits that the Petitioner had once again approached the 1^st Respondent on the online dispute redressal portal dated October 23, 2023 disputing ownership of the loan account no. reported by 2^nd Respondent along with personal information such as Address, voter ID number. Driver license number, phone nos, and email address of the Petitioner mentioned in his CIR. However, while 1^st Respondent was doing the analysis of the grievance raised in the said email dated October 23^rd, 2023 meantime the Petitioner has filed the instant Writ petition disputing the same grievance mentioned in the email dated October 23^rd, 2023, Respondent No. 4 once again conducted detailed analysis of the credit information of the Petitioner in its database and it was observed that the data submitted to 1^st Respondent by member credit institutions/banks and the match rules, the CIR generated for the Petitioner had credit information details pertaining to another individual which had identifying details. This was due to the system of generating CIR which works on the match logic and for that there are a few set of match rules. This includes match on name, date of birth, address, gender and identifiers like PAN No/Passport No Voter Id No / Driver's License No. or Phone no. When these identifiers are fed into the system a CIR on the best possible match with the data available in the system is generated. However