Hyderabad: Bank, firm fined Rs 60,000 for error in credit report

HYDERABAD: Wrongly linking a vehicle loan has cost the ICICI Bank Limited and Trans Union CIBIL Limited dear as they have been directed to pay Rs 60,000 to the complainant for making an error in his CIBIL report, which is a detailed record of credit history consisting of personal information, contact details, employment information, loan account and credit card information, and enquiry information which in turn, resulted in the rejection of his loan application.
K Vinod Kumar, the complainant, submitted that he has been using the credit card of ICICI bank for about one and a half years and that he has not availed any of their other services. Kumar said that when he approached another bank for availing a personal loan, the bank declined his application and informed him about defaults in his CIBIL. After the bank raised the issue, Kumar said that he checked his CIBIL score and was shocked to see that it was very low.

He alleged that his CIBIL reflected a two-wheeler loan account for Rs 31,900 and that he was wrongly made a joint owner for the said loan by the ICICI and Trans Union CIBIL Limited.
He claimed that because of the negligence of the opposite parties, his CIBIL score had declined from 800 to 607 as on October 22, 2018, because of which the personal loan was rejected.
After coming to know about the negligence caused by the opposite parties, Kumar said he first approached the customer service of ICICI, followed by getting a legal notice issued. He said that both the parties had placed the blame on each other, but refused to accept their mistake. He also submitted that the ICICI and ombudsman held a conciliation meeting and refunded Rs 1,000 to the complainant for checking of CIBIL reports. Left with no option, he filed this complaint.
Both ICICI and Trans Union CIBIL Limited, meanwhile, failed to appear and contest the matter despite receiving notices.
During the trial, the bench noticed that Trans Union CIBIL Limited has categorically admitted that there was some error in the information provided in the CIBIL report of the complainant, and the said error was certainly unintentional. “This itself is sufficient to establish the deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties,” said the bench.