The Supreme Court in the case M/s. Canara Bank AndOrs. v. S. ReghukumarAndAnr observed and has upheld the order passed by National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission wherein directing the Canara Bank to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to a lawyer, the Canara Bank was kept in the list of defaulters as per CIBIL for about 7.5 years after discharging his loan obligations.
The bench comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in the case observed and has stated that this court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as the court is satisfied with the reasoning given for awarding compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five Lac).
In the present case, a vehicle loan has been availed by the complainant from Canara Bank in 2002 and the complainant purchased a Maruti 800 Car. In 2008, the entire loan was closed and in 2010, the complainant had taken another vehicle loan from Vijaya Bank. Thus, when the complainant went to Vijaya Bank, the complainant was informed that a loan defaulter by Canara Bank as per the Consumer Credit Information Report of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (CIBIL) has been arrayed against him. It is being appeared before the court that even though the loan amount was being discharged the Canara Bank did not inform CIBIL. Therefore, the said complaint was filed before the Kerala State Commission wherein seeking compensation for mental agony and for hampering the reputation of him. Thus, a demand of Rs. 25 lakhs was made which is to be paid as compensation along with a cost imposed of Rs. 25,000.
It has been directed by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to the Canara Bank to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the lawyer with interest. The Canada Bank aggrieved with the same, filed an appeal before the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission. Thus, the order was upheld by NCDRC of the State Commission, but the NCDRC has set aside the interest awarded.
It has also been noted by the NCDRC that the in 2015 the Canara Bank had rectified the error only after informing of the complainant which is almost 7.5 years after the loan amount was being discharged.
However, the Special Leave Petition was filed by Canara Bank against the NCDRC order on February 13, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The bench comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in the case observed and has noted that this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as this court is satisfied with the reasoning given for awarding compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The counsels, Advocate Jaimon Andrews and Advocate Piyo Harold Jaimon appearing on behalf of the complainant lawyer.
