Finance company to compensate consumer for wrongly submitting name as a defaulter with CIBIL

Comments 0
SummaryCiti Financial Consumer Finance India Limited has been penalised by the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on account of submitting the name of a declared ‘valued customer’ as a defaulter with the credit information bureau CIBIL.

Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited has been penalised by the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on account of submitting the name of a declared ‘valued customer’ as a defaulter with the credit information bureau CIBIL.

The complainant,Vijay Kumar Uppal, a resident of Panchkula, stated that he took a loan against his property in 2006 from the company with a bank account and that at the time of disbursing the loan, the company took various cheques towards installment from him which were cleared in time.

According to him, he closed the account by paying the full and final amount and that after receipt of the amount, he received a letter intimating that the loan account had been closed and there were no dues against him. Thereafter, he approached the company again for taking personal loan of Rs 7 lakh which was sanctioned in April 2008. The loan was to be repaid in 36 EMIs.

Following a confusion over the amount to be paid by him, Vijay had to personally meet a representative and settle the matter. Thereafter, he was also issued a letter towards full and final settlement of loan account and also declared as a valued customer to them.

The complainant alleged that in the month of March 2011, he applied for a loan for staff bus to a private bank, but it was rejected on the ground that his name was reflected in CIBIL. The complainant claimed that he obtained information that Citi Financial had given his name to CIBIL and that the loan was shown as ‘written off’. The complainant served a legal notice in June 2011 to settle the matter and clear his name but nothing was done.

In their written statement, the company admitted that the complainant opened the different accounts which were subsequently settled and closed. However, it denied the confusion over settlement of the second loan as amounting to harassment and admitted to declaring him as a valuable customer. It was denied that his request for loan was rejected by the private bank due to the reason that his name was reflecting in

Single Page Format
Ads by Google
Reader´s Comments
| Post a Comment
Please Wait while comments are loading...