IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH:  PRESIDENT

                

F.A. No. 502 of 2022

[Against the order passed in C.C. No.96 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Salem].

 

Tuesday, the 16^th day of April 2024

 

1.  The Assistant General Manager

 State Bank of India

 Main Branch

 State Bank of India Road

 Coimbatore- 641 023.

 

2.   The Branch Manager

      State Bank of India

      Retail assets Centralised

        Processing Centre

      Zonal Office, State Bank Road

      Coimbatore.                                                      .. Appellants/

                                                                                Opposite Parties

 

- Vs –

 

Madan A. Senthil

S/o. P.Arumugam

No.77, Podanur Main Road

Podanur Post

Coimbatore – 641 023.                                            ..  Respondent/

                                                                                 Complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties:  M/s.S. Makesh

 

Respondent/ Complainant                  :  Served, Called Absent

 

               

 This appeal came up for final hearing on 31.10.2023, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

                This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 16.08.2022, in C.C. No.96 of 2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Salem allowing the complaint filed by the respondent, in part.

 

                2. The appellants 1 and 2 are the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the respondent is the complainant before the District Commission.  For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission.    

 

        3. The case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Commission, is as follows :-

                The complainant is a leading educationalist and is running several educational institutions in and around Coimbatore.  The complainant availed car loan from the opposite parties Bank, under Account No.10869547687 (Old No.0082701593022761).  He repaid all the dues to the 1^st opposite party in full and liquidated the entire outstanding amount on 11.08.2007.  The 2^nd opposite party had issued an Account Statement indicating ‘NIL’ balance along with a letter dated 14.12.2011 confirming the closure of the said loan account.  The complainant had honestly paid the entire dues and closed the loan account.  But, subsequently, to his utter dismay found that this loan account is shown as overdue account and was reported twice to Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (CIBIL) on 11.06.2013 showing a balance of Rs.1,68,713/- and an overdue of Rs.19,289/- towards the auto loan availed by him from the 1^st opposite party Bank.  In fact the complainant has no balance due to be paid.  The 1^st opposite party had recommended the complainant’s name for enlisting in CIBIL.  Having issued the ‘No due certificate’ the opposite parties are legally liable to remove the complainant’s name from CIBIL enlisting.  The act of the opposite parties is arbitrary and illegal.  The complainant is having a high reputation in the society.  Whileso, having found his name as a defaulter in the CIBIL listing, he was put to much mental torture and agony, since his reputation has been tarnished by the negligent and deficiency of service of the opposite parties.  Though the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties was pointed out by the complainant to the opposite parties, no corrective action has been initiated by them, even after a lapse of 6 years from the date of closure of the car loan account.  The communications sent by the complainant in this regard, were not responded by the opposite parties.  The com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document