Date of Filing: 16.04.2019
Date of Order: 08.03.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M,, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Monday the 8th day, of March 2021
C.C.No. 177 /2018
Between
A.N. Nagendra Narayan, S/o Late A.N. Venugopal,
Aged about 57 years, Occ: service,
R/o: Flat No. 302, Srinilaya Apartment ,
Plot No. 428, Road No. 10, Deepthisrinagar,
Madinaguda, Miyapur Post, Hyderabad – 500 049.
….Complainant
And
1. The Assistasnt General Manger,
Andhra Bank, S.R. Nagar,
Hyderabad.
2. The Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer,
Andhra Bank , 5-9-11, Patthabi Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad
….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant :Mr. Bhaskar Poluri
Counsel for the Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 : Mr. P. Balaji
O R D E R
(By Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER on behalf of the bench)
1. The above consumer complaint has been filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the complainant alleging that inaction on the part of the opposite parties in not uploading his data on the web site of Nodal-Bank “Canara Bank” and not arranging the interest subsidy amount on the loan amount availed by him as being eligible under the scheme, announced by Government of India, for waival of interest on the educational loan availed by the students for educational purposes, whose parents income is Rs. 4.5 Lakhs p.a, amounts to deficiency in service and as such prayed it to direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant; the interest subsidy amount of Rs. 1,14,050/-. not to raise any interest from 08.05.2018, Rs.1,00,000/- towards the damages for deficiency of service and causing inconvenience and mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of complaint and such further order or orders as it deems fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of the complaint are that the complainant availed educational loan for an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- sanctioned by the opposite party No.1 for prosecuting his B.Tech studies in the year 2009 and is stated to have completed the same. The repayment of loan amount was commenced from 2015 onwards and a part payment to Rs. 2,00,000/- is stated to have been made.
Meanwhile it is stated that the MCRD, the Government of India Higher Education announced a scheme for wavial of interest on educational loan availed by the students whose payment’s income is Rs. 4.5 Lakhs p.a. The above scheme was effecting from 01.04.2009 in ‘Canara Bank’ was declared as as ‘Nodal Bank’ for the purpose. Which is stated to have been appointed for settlement of interest subsidy on the loan amount availed by the eligible students. For uploading data of eligible students, in this regard, for seeking approval for the same and adjusting the loan interest subsidy amount to the accounts of the concerned is fixed on their respective Banks, which sanctioned the loan. The complainant states that he submitted all the details along with income certificate of his partners issued by the MRO concerned to the opposite party Bank requesting it to upload the date to the said Nodal Bank -Canara Bank to seek approval and adjust the interest subsidy amount on the educational loan, as has been sanctioned by it and availed the same by him.. Despite the same, it is stated that the opposite parties have not taken any action. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Ombudsman, it is stated to have been informed the complainant vide letter dated 02.05.2016 that the opposite party has claimed he interest subsidy on the education loan availed by him to Nodal Bank -Canara Bank during 2011 duly enclosing the dt. 24.03.2016 of the O.P.
In the above stated letter of the Canara Bank, it has been clearly mentioned vide para No.3 that it is the responsibility of the concerned loan sanctioned branch of the Bank to claim the interest subsidy of the eligible students by uploading the claim for the same correctly, as per the scheme guidelines, within the stipulated time in the Web portal of the [CSIS] Central Sector Interest Subsidy and when it opens the same with the permission of MHRD, Ministry of Finance . He states that here is no fault on the part of the complainant as he submitted all required documents to the opposite party which is stated to have been failed to upload the same within the stipulated time on the said web portal. The complainant states that he again, vide his letter dt. 08.08.2017, requested the Chief General Manager Andhra Bank , Loan Division, to look into the matter and take immediate remedial measures but no action is stated to have been taken, due to which he suffered financial loss.
Despite umpteen requests, it is stated that the opposite parties have failed to take any action in uploading data on the concerned Web portal, not seeking approval and not adjusting interest subsidy thereon to his loan account, being maintained with the OP.1, which is stated to amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties . As such the complainant has filed the above complaint before the District Forum with a prior to grant reliefs, as stated supra.
3. The O.Ps have got filed its written version through its Assistant General Manager. Mr. I.Satyanarayana denying allegations made in the complaint. But the admitted facts are granting of educational loan by it, availing the same by the complainant and uploading the claim for interest subsidy on the web portal of the Nodal bank-Canara Bank by it. It states that after submission of the claim in respect of the complainant for interest subsidy to the Nodal bank-Canara Bank, it is the responsibility of the said Nodal bank / Canara Bank to explain what procedure has been admitted by it for getting the interest subsidy amount from the authority concerned. it attributed the deficiency in service on the part of the Nodal bank-Canara Bank in not arranging the interest subsidy amount for the complainant and it emphasizes that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. For adjudication dispute the Nodal bank- Canara Bank is necessary party in the instant complaint , which the complainant has
not impleaded as such states that on this ground alone the complaint needs to be dismissed. Under the stated circumstances the opposite party No.1 states that as there is no deficiency in service on its part as such if prays the Hon’ble District Forum to dismiss the complaint.
4. During the course of the enquiry, the learned counsel Mr. P. Balaji Advocate has filed a memo stating that the written version filed for the opposite party No.1 is adopted for the opposite party No.2. The complainant got filed an evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support his version, he got marked the documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A16. written arguments have been got filed by the complainant but opposite party failed to file the same. Oral submissions have been made by the complainant the opposite parties have not choosen to make any oral submissions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perusal the material brought on record. The following points , for arrival of the just and proper conclusion, have arisen for determination.
i) Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the
part of the opposite parties in not arranging the interest subsidy amount
on the educational loan availed by him.?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as claimed for .?
iii) To what extent.?
5.i) Based on the admission of the opposite party, in its written version as to the deficiency in service on its part in not arranging the interest subsidy amount on the educational loan availed by the complainant and stating that it is the duty of the Nodal Bank-Canara Bank, which is not acceptable. When the opposite party No.1 has uploaded the claim in respect of the complainant based on the received required documents from him, on web portal of the Nodal bank-Canara Bank, as has been cleared by the Ombudsman in para no.3 of its letter, the pursuance of the matter till claim is settled and amount is received from the authority concerned, it is the duty of the Opposite Parties not the Nodal Bank-Canara Bank including the duty of returning of interest subsidy amount to the complainant. As such the contention of the Opposite parties relating to the non-joinder of Nodal Bank in the complaint is unsustainable. The said facts corroborate even by the clauses of the scheme pronounced by the Central Government by which it waived the interest on educational loans availed by the complainant, who is eligible to the same. Admission of the fact of submission of the claim in respect of complainant for interest subsidy to the Nodal Bank-Canara Bank before the Ombudsman apart from the above, not pursuing and not arranging the interest subsidy to the complainant, fixes the liability on the opposite parties for their actions causing loss and agony to the complainant.
5.ii) In view of our above findings and for the reasons stated herein above, the complainant is entitled to reliefs as granted herein below under point number.5.iii.
5.iii) In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, jointly and severally to pay to the complainant :
a) Rs. 1,14,050/- along with interest @ 9% p.a till realization, however , subject to variation in awarded amount as per his eligibility,
b) to Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony,
c) to Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the litigation.
Time for compliance: within 45 days from the date of service of this order else the above granted amounts, except costs, shall attract interest @12% p.a till realization.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this the 8th day of March, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 - Copy of Education loan sanction dt. 09.12.2008.
Ex.A2 – Copy of Government of India interest subsidy.
Ex.A3 – Copy of Interest subsidy claim dt. 28.02.2011.
Ex.A4 – Copy of representation of the complainant dt. 09.02.2011.
Ex.A5 – Copy of representation along with enclosures dt. 29.05.2011.
Ex.A6 – Copy of Order of the banking Ombudsman dt. 11.10.2011.
Ex.A7 – Copy of mail from Canara Bank ( Nodal Bank) dt. 21.01.2012.
Ex.A8 – Copy of representation of the complainant dt. 13.11.2015.
Ex.A9 – Copy of letter dt. 16.01.2016.
Ex.A10 – Copy of letter dt. 31.01.2016.
Ex.A11– Copy of orders of the Ombudsman dt. 02.05.2016.
Ex.A12 – Copy of representation of the complainant dt. 10.08.2016.
Ex.A13– Copy of complainant email dt. 23.08.2011.
Ex.A14– Copy of complainant email representation dt. 06.01.2012.
Ex.A15 – Copy of complainant email dt. 10.07.2016.
Ex.A16 – Copy of complainant email dt. 08.08.2016
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party :
Nil.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
