One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
TL;DR: If you never signed the loan papers, you are not liable for that debt, and harassment by debt collectors aimed at you is not something you have to live with. Being someone's son or daughter does not make you a borrower or a guarantor. Written complaints to the bank's nodal officer, the RBI Ombudsman and the TRAI channels usually stop the calls. If they don't, a consumer complaint or a civil suit for injunction is the next step.
The first call came on a Tuesday afternoon in early March 2025. A man on the line asked for Nikhil Deshpande's father by name, and Nikhil, twenty-one, picked up without knowing what the call was about. He walked the phone across the room and handed it to his father.
That hand-over is why his number is still being dialled.
Within a week he had counted forty-two calls in a single day. Some were automated. Some were men who refused to name their agency. A few were OTPs he had never requested, which is what happens when a caller wants a phone to keep buzzing until somebody answers.
He had signed nothing. The loan was his father's, taken from a public sector bank well over fifteen years ago, with his mother as co-borrower. Nikhil was in primary school at the time. Requests to the bank to delete his number went nowhere for a fortnight, which is when his father approached the Chamber of Advocate Sudhir Rao. Notices went to the bank's nodal officer and to the recovery agency, and a consumer complaint followed. Advocate Sudhir Rao's experience in banking-recovery and consumer matters made the difference here. The calls stopped, and the bank put it in writing that Nikhil appears on no loan record.
Key Facts of the Case
- The loan was taken by the client's father from a public sector bank more than fifteen years ago; his mother signed as co-borrower.
- The client was a school-going child when the loan was taken and was never a party to the agreement.
- He has never signed any loan document, guarantee or consent form connected to that borrowing.
- Recovery agents obtained his mobile number and used it to pursue his father's dues, with forty-two calls logged in one day.
- He also received unsolicited OTPs on the same number, a common pressure tactic.
- Under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract of guarantee needs a surety. The client was not one.
- There was no privity of contract between the