MOHIT SHARDA S/O KAPIL SHARDA Vs. BANK OF BARODA & ANR THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER; CREDIT INFORMATION BURUEAU (I) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 17-08-2016 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 180 0f 2016.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that petitioner/complainant for his self-employment and livelihood of his family had applied for a loan with ICICI Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Raipur for his shop and the loan was sanctioned in his favour. In relation to the loan when the petitioner/complainant went to ICICI Bank he was informed that his name is seen in the "CIBIL" list of defaulters and that his loan from Bank of Baroda was pending whereas no loan was pending as he had ever taken any loan from Bank of Baroda. The petitioner so informed ICICI Bank but they said that till the time his name was reflecting in the CIBIL list for a pending loan payment, till then it would not be possible to give him the loan. The petitioner then filed a complaint with Bank of Baroda and CIBIL and also informed CIBIL about the same through e-mail on 03/09/2013. A reply was sent by CIBIL to the petitioner on the same day but no action was taken. Then the petitioner through his advocate sent a notice to Bank of Baroda by registered post on 25/09/2013 and a copy of it was sent to the head office and corporate office of Bank of Baroda and intimation was also given to the Reserve Bank of India. No reply was sent either by the bank or the Reserve Bank. The petitioner did not have any account in Bank of Baroda and neither had he ever taken any loan from Bank of Baroda. Hence the unpaid loan shown by opposite party no. 1 - bank against petitioner was unfair and clearly fell under the category of deficiency in service.

(3.) Respondent/Opposite party no. 2 without inquiry and without any information had put the name of the petitioner in the defaulters list which was unfair and the above act clearly also fell under the category of deficiency in service. The petitioner was an account holder in ICICI Bank and because the Bank of Baroda and CIBIL had shown his name as a defaulter petitioner's loan was not sanctioned. Therefore, the petitioner, on the basis of above has prayed for grant of compensation as follows:--