Finance company penalised, told to cough up Rs 60,000

Ishrat S Banwait

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 13

For having wrongly included the name of a specially abled man in the list of CIBIL defaulters, a finance company has been penalised by the consumer forum. The 30-year-old had also to face criminal proceedings because of the firm’s mistake. The forum came down heavily on Bajaj Finance Limited and fined it Rs 60,000.

Surjeet Singh of Masatgarh village in Mohali stated that he is 100 per cent physically challenged and has to depend on others for his day-to-day needs. He had earlier taken a loan from the firm but there was no default in the repayment. The entire loan was cleared and the loan account stood closed.

However, in June 2016, police officials came to arrest Surjeet in connection with a criminal complaint pending in the district courts of Chandigarh. On enquiry, it was found that a criminal complaint under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007, was launched against the complainant at the instance of the company.

After checking records, it was found that a loan of Rs 47,700 was disbursed to Surjit Singh of Mullanpur village, Mohali. However, by mistake it was shown against the complainant. On realising their mistake, the criminal complaint was withdrawn. But even after withdrawal, Surjeet found his name in the list of CIBIL defaulters. It was not removed despite various requests and Surjeet thus approached the forum.

‘Firm put innocent consumer in jeopardy’

In its reply, the company stated that due to “inadvertent technical error in the system”, loan was booked in the name of the complainant having same name of the person who had actually defaulted. On checking record, the mistake was rectified and the criminal complaint launched against the complainant was withdrawn. It added that the complainant had not asked for the removal of his name from the defaulter’s list of CIBIL.

No doubt, the act and conduct of the officials of the firm was “reckless” and “it suffers from gross negligence”. It added that without caring to scrutinise the record, the firm put an innocent consumer in jeopardy to face trial of a criminal offence. It also observed, “The opposite party (OP) had even no compassion for a physically handicapped person who was put to harassment”.

The Tribunal observed, “We are at pain to note and express our displeasure on the act and conduct of the OP whose officer(s)/official(s) had no human touch and sympathy with a person”. It added, “Now a vague defence is being set up by the OP that the complainant did not pursue with it for the removal of his name from the list of CIBIL defaulters, which is totally ridiculous.”

The judgement says the name of the complainant was wrongly put on the defaulter’s list by the OP and it was their bounden duty to get it removed even if there was any error that had occurred due to gross negligence on their part. The firm was thus asked to immediately take the required steps and get the complainant’s name removed from the list of CIBIL defaulters, if not already done.

The company was also directed to pay Rs 50,000 to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service as well as mental agony and harassment caused to him along with Rs 15,000 as costs of litigation.