Sujith Prasad vs The Reserve Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 275 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/16TH POUSHA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.22108 OF 2020(K)


PETITIONER:

              SUJITH PRASAD,
              AGED 53 YEARS,
              S/O SIVARAMA PILLAI, 'SARAS',
              FLAT NO.208, KSHB,
              CHINNAKADA P.O., KOLLAM TALUK,
              KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR
              SRI.NOBEL RAJU

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
              BRANCH OFFICE, P.B NO 6507,
              NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 033.

     2        THE BRANCH MANAGER,
              ICICI BANK LTD, VAIDYA COMMERCIAL ARCADE,
              RESIDENCY ROAD, CHINNAKADA P.O.,
              KOLLAM-691 001.

     3        THE DIRECTOR,
              TRANS UNION CIBIL LIMITED,
              ONE INDIA BULLS CENTER, TOWER 2A,
              19TH FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
              ELPHINSTONE ROADS, MUMBAI-400 013.

              R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR
              SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 (B/O)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.22108/2020
                                   :2 :




                                                              [CR]



                           JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 6th day of January, 2021

The petitioner, who is a practising Lawyer, seeks to

direct the 2nd respondent-Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited

to recall the petitioner's entries in the CIBIL report of the

petitioner and to direct the 2nd respondent to delete the

adverse entries.

2. The petitioner states that he had availed a personal

loan of ₹3 lakhs from the 2nd respondent. The loan was

sanctioned on 16.12.2006. The petitioner repaid the entire

loan. The 2nd respondent, however, issued a notice on

12.08.2016 demanding the petitioner to pay ₹42,895/-. The

petitioner remitted the said amount as demanded by the 2nd WP(C) No.22108/2020

respondent on 30.08.2016.

3. The 2nd respondent sanctioned to the petitioner an

amount of ₹37,337/-, on 16.07.2007. The petitioner repaid the

said amount also. Yet the 2nd respondent demanded an

additional amount of ₹11,000/-, as per Ext.P3. The petitioner

remitted the said amount also as evidenced by Ext.P4.

4. The petitioner wanted to avail a vehicle loan from

another bank. The Manager was satisfied with the eligibility of

the petitioner for availing loan. The Manager, however, did

not sanction the loan pointing out that there are some adverse

entries in the CIBIL report in respect of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner would state that the repayment of the

loans availed by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent, may

not have been made with the desired promptitude. However,

the petitioner had remitted all the amounts demanded by the

2nd respondent which were alleged to be due, in the loan

accounts of the petitioner. However, in spite of remittance of

all the dues, the 2nd respondent made adverse reports on the

basis of which the 3rd respondent entered adverse entries in WP(C) No.22108/2020

their records. The action of the 2nd respondent in not

communicating true state of affairs in respect of the

petitioner's loan accounts has caused untold hardship to the

petitioner. The 2nd respondent is therefore liable to be

directed to delete adverse entries in the CIBIL report of the

petitioner, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The 2nd respondent-Bank did not enter appearance.

The 3rd respondent-Company, however, filed a statement.

The 3rd respondent stated that it is a Credit Information

Company certified by the Reserve Bank of India. When

information/data is submitted by a member-Bank or financial

institution, the 3rd respondent enters the same in their records.

The 3rd respondent is only a repository of information. The 3rd

respondent is not bound to ascertain the correctness or

otherwise of the information submitted to them, by financial

institution.

7. On receipt of notice of the writ petition, the 3rd

respondent sent Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) mails to the 2nd

respondent requiring to confirm whether the information WP(C) No.22108/2020

provided by them in respect of the petitioner is correct or

requires any correction. The 2nd respondent so far has not

responded to the mails sent by the 3rd respondent. Unless the

2nd respondent reports any change in records maintained by

them, the 3rd respondent will not be in a position to make any

corrections.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st

respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for

the 3rd respondent.

9. It is the credit report of the 3rd respondent by which

the petitioner is aggrieved. Financial Institutions try to mitigate

the risk of lending to borrowers by making a credit analysis on

individuals and institutions applying for new credit facilities or

loan. The analysis is normally based on a review of Capacity,

Capital, Conditions, Character and Collaterals, called "the Five

Cs" of credit. Financial Institutions in India rely on credit

scores given by Credit Information Companies formed under

the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. WP(C) No.22108/2020

10. The 3rd respondent is a Credit Information Company

functioning in accordance with the provisions of the Credit

Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The 3rd

respondent gives credit scores in respect of the customers of

Credit Institutions. A credit score is a numerical expression

based on an analysis of the credit history of an individual. A

credit score in effect represents the creditworthiness of an

individual. Credit scores are used by Credit Institutions like

banks and other financial entities to evaluate the potential risk

passed by lending money to consumers and to mitigate loans

due to bad debt. By the very nature of credit score, it has

positive or negative impact on the financial credibility of an

individual.

11. It is taking into account the said fact that the

Parliament has enacted Credit Information Companies

(Regulation) Act, 2005.

12. Section 21(3) of the Act, 2005 reads as follows:-

"21. Alteration of credit information files and credit reports--(1) Any person, who applies for grant or sanction of credit facility, from any credit institution, WP(C) No.22108/2020

may request to such institution to furnish him a copy of the credit information obtained by such institution from the credit information company.

(2) Every credit institution shall, on receipt of request under sub-section (1), furnish to the person referred to in that sub-section a copy of the credit information subject to payment of such charges, as may be specified by regulations, by the Reserve Bank in this regard.

(3) If a credit information company or specified user or credit institution in possession or control of the credit information, has not updated the information maintained by it, a borrower or client may request all or any of them to update the information; whether by making an appropriate correction, or addition or otherwise, and on such request the credit information company or the specified user or the credit institution, as the case may be, shall take appropriate steps to update the credit information within thirty days after being requested to do so:

Provided that the credit information company and the specified user shall make the correction, deletion or addition in the credit information only after such correction, deletion or addition has been certified as correct by the concerned credit institution:

Provided further that no such correction, deletion or addition shall be made in the credit information if any dispute relating to such correction, deletion or addition is pending before any arbitrator or tribunal or court and in cases where such dispute is pending, the entries in the books of the concerned credit institution shall be taken into account for the purpose of credit information."

In view of the first proviso to Section 21(3), a Credit

Information Company can make a correction, deletion or WP(C) No.22108/2020

addition of the credit information, after such correction,

deletion or addition has been certified as credit by the

concerned credit institution. The 2nd proviso would indicate

that the right over a credit information is solely that of the

concerned bank or financial institution.

13. In view of the fact that credit score given by the

credit information companies like the 3rd respondent can have

serious adverse civil consequences on individuals, the 3rd

respondent is bound to ascertain the true state of affairs with

its member-Banks/financial institutions, whenever any

anomaly is pointed out by individuals. Updation of credit

information is a statutory right of a borrower or client of a

Credit Institution, in view of Section 21(3) of the Act, 2005.

14. The statement filed by the 3rd respondent would

show that as soon as the 3rd respondent received information

about the grievance of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent

promptly addressed the 2nd respondent to confirm on the

complete account details of the accounts of the petitioner.

The 3rd respondent required the 2nd respondent-Bank that in WP(C) No.22108/2020

case of any incorrect information, the correct information shall

be provided to the 3rd respondent. However, the 2nd

respondent has not responded to Exts.R3(a) and R3(b)

communications made by the 3rd respondent.

15. Since the failure of the 2nd respondent to act on

Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) has grave consequences on the

financial credibility and creditworthiness of the petitioner and

since updation of credit information is a statutory right

conferred on the petitioner under Section 21(3) of the Credit

Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, this Court

finds that relief should be granted to the petitioner, in this writ

petition.

16. In such circumstances, the 2nd respondent is

directed to respond to Ext.R3(a) mail dated 01.11.2020 and

Ext.R3(b) mail dated 08.12.2020 of the 3rd respondent seeking

confirmation on the complete account details in respect of the

petitioner, within a period of two weeks. The 3rd respondent,

on receipt of such information, should make changes in the

credit report in respect of the petitioner if found warranted on WP(C) No.22108/2020

the basis of information provided by the 2nd respondent,

without further delay.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/07.01.2021 WP(C) No.22108/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.8.2016 VIDE REF NO PL/1608/0604932.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE SLIP DATED 30.8.2016 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.42,895/-

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2016 VIDES REF.NO.PL/1608/ 0604930.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE SLIP DATED 30.8.2016 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,000/-

EXHIBIT P5            TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY
                      THE ORIENTAL BACK OF COMMERCE TO THE
                      PETITIONER     VIDES   ACCOUNT    NO
                      13942011003271


RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A)      TRUE   COPY  OT   THE  E-MAIL   DATED
                   02/11/2020 SENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO
                   THE OFFICIALS CONCERNED OF THE 2ND
                   RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(B)      TRUE   COPY  OF   THE  E-MAIL   DATED
                   08/12/2020 SENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO
                   THE OFFICIALS CONCERNED OF THE 2ND
                   RESPONDENT.