Background of the Case
Between February and October 2019, Rathod received multiple notices from Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd., demanding repayment of outstanding loans taken by two individuals. The petitioner was mistakenly identified as the guarantor for these loans, a role actually held by another person sharing his name. Upon receiving these notices, Rathod promptly contacted the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in July 2019, seeking clarification and resolution. The RBI responded, indicating that an investigation had been initiated into the matter.
Bank's Acknowledgment and Apology
Subsequently, Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank issued an apology letter to Rathod, acknowledging the error. The bank clarified that a different individual with the same name had signed as a guarantor for the loans in question. They attributed the mistake to the similarity in names and assured Rathod that corrections had been made to prevent future issues.
Persistent Issues with CIBIL Score
Despite the bank's assurances, Rathod discovered that his CIBIL score remained adversely affected. He made a detailed representation to the bank on November 27, 2019, seeking rectification of his credit score. However, no corrective action was taken by the bank, prompting Rathod to approach the Gujarat High Court for redress.
Legal Proceedings Initiated
Rathod filed a petition requesting the court to direct Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank to correct his CIBIL score. He also sought interim relief, urging the RBI to initiate legal action or an inquiry against the bank for allegedly using fraudulent entries in the loan account and misusing his personal details without permission.
Court's Response
Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee presided over the case and, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, issued a notice to the respondents. The court scheduled the matter for further hearing on April 25, 2025.
Implications of the Case
This case highlights the potential consequences of mistaken identity in financial transactions and the challenges individuals face in correcting errors in their credit reports. It underscores the importance of accurate data management by financial institutions and the need for prompt corrective measures to prevent undue hardship to affected individuals.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court's intervention in this matter emphasizes the judiciary's role in addressing grievances arising from administrative errors by financial institutions. The forthcoming hearings will determine the accountability of the bank and the measures required to rectify the petitioner's CIBIL score, thereby restoring his financial credibility.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.