Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/57/2016

Dr.Lahari A.S.R, wife of Dr.S.Feroz - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, m/s. Federal Bank Limited,Nellore Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sk.Akber

20 Oct 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :31-05-2016

                                                                             Date of Disposal:20-10-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Friday, this the 20^th day of   OCTOBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

                         Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M., Member

 

C.C.No.57/2016

 

Dr. Lahari A.S.R.,

Wife of Dr.S. Feroz,

Hindu, Aged  about 30 years,

Dentist, Residing at Flat No.501,

Orchid Apartments,

Dargamitta, Nellore-3.                                                                    ..… Complainant   

                                                             Vs.

1.	The Branch Manager, Federal Bank Limited, Nellore Branch, Kaizen Heights, Near Sunday Market, Pogathota, Nellore-1.
2.	The Chief General Manager, Federal Bank Limited, Having it’s office at PB No.103, Federal Towers, Aluva, Kochi-683101, Kerala.                                         ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .

          This complaint is coming before us for hearing in the presence of                                          Sri Sk. Akbar and Smt.P. Rama Devi, advocates for the complainant and                                                               Sri  K. Sesha Reddy and Sri K. Mallikarjuna,   advocates for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

             The complainant  filed the complaint against the opposite parties  to direct the opposite parties  to deduct  the excess calculated interest amount that was occurred during  the moratorium  under the “Central Scheme of Interest Subsidy for Education Loans (CSIS)” and fix the latest EMI after deducting the EMIs paid by the complainant, to award compensation or damages of Rs.6,00,000/-  to the complainant alongwith interest  @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

          2.   The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-

          The complainant  submits that  she   availed education loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the 1^st opposite party on 21-06-2010 under loan account bearing No.16687200000012, for perusing her MDS course in Narayana Dental College, Nellore.  The 1^st opposite party released the loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/-  in three instalments i.e., Rs.1,30,000/-, Rs.1,35,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/- in the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively.

          The complainant further submits that the interest accrued during the period from 21-06-2010 till 30-07-2014 was debited to the said loan amount.  The said period includes study period of 3 years and one year moratorium.

          The complainant further submits that the 1^st opposite party fixed the EMI at Rs.13,587/- from 30-07-2014 and still the complainant is paying the said instalments and so far she has paid Rs.2,11,428/-.

          The complainant further submits that 1^st opposite party  while calculating the said EMI of Rs.13,587/-, included interest for the period 21-06-2010 to                            30-07-2014. Whereas as per the  guidelines of Indian Bank’s Association, Mumbai, the interest that has accrued during the period  moratorium, is subsidized by the Central Government under “Central Scheme of Interest Subsidy for Education Loans (CSIS). Further the said scheme is applicable to loans taken by students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections. Complainant belongs to weaker section. Thus the  1^st opposite party without giving  interest subsidy including the same while calculating the EMI.

          Thereafter the complainant submitted that the above mentioned circular  and the income tax return of her father on  05-01-2015 to the 1^st opposite party and once again  on 08-01-2016 but there was  no action from the 1^st opposite party.  Consequently there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties  and thereby subjected to mental agony and suffering to the complainant.  Hence complainant is constrained to file this complaint for the reliefs  and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

          3.       The opposite party No.1 filed counter / written version and opposite party No.2 filed memo adopting the counter / written version filed by the opposite party No.1 with the following averments.-

           That the opposite party No.1 submits that  Dr.ASR Lahari, D/o.AVR Mohan Rao, who is the complainant approached the opposite party bank for an education loan ofRs.4,00,000/-  under the Special Vidya Loan scheme to pursue her MDS  Course  for a period of 3 years.  After considering the requirement and other merits; the opposite party bank sanctioned Rs.4,00,000/- Special Vidya Loan for a period  of 108 months (Course period +  Moratorium period + Repayment term).  After satisfied with the terms and conditions  of sanction, complainant availed the loan on 21-06-2010  by executing necessary documents  in this regard.  The said loan account number is 16687200000012.

          The opposite party No.1 submits that as per the Central Scheme to provide Interest Subsidy (CSIS), the benefits of the  scheme would be applicable to those students belonging to economically weaker sections, with an annual gross parental / family income not  exceeding Rs.4,50,000/- (from all sources). Income proof from competent  authority  shall be required to be submitted by the student for getting the benefits under the scheme.

          The opposite party No.1 submits that at the time of sanction of Education Loan, the complainant produce Income Tax returns of her after AVR Mohan Rao, dated 15-12-2009  in proof of his income from all sources.  As per the said certificate his gross annual income is Rs.5,66,832/-.  Since the  said amount is more than the cut off amount mentioned in CSIS i.e., Rs.4,50,000/-; the  complainant was not eligible for interest subsidy under the CSIS. 

          The opposite party No.1 submits that the opposite party bank officials has informed to the complainant that based on the income proof submitted at the time of sanction of the loan, the complainant is not eligible for interest subsidiary under CSIS.  As such the prayer made by the complainant in complaint to deduct the excess calculated interest amount that was occurred during the  moratorium under the CSIS and  fix the latest EMI after deducting eh EMI’s paid by the complainant is not  maintainable.   

          The opposite party No.1 submits that the complainant started  repaying the loan from 30-07-2014 and paid an amount  of Rs.2,11,428/- up to 02-12-2015.  Subsequently, the  complainant was not making any payment to the loan amount.  Inspite of repeated reminders from the opposite party bank, the complainant did not take efforts to clear the arrears.  When the opposite party bank  officials met the complainant to pay the amount due, she failed to pay the amount due to the bank.

          The opposite party No.1 submits that on 29-01-2016,  the opposite party was issued registered notice with acknowledgement due requesting  the  complainant to clear all the arrears.  Subsequently, on 31-12-2015, account is classified as NPA  as per the guidelines of RBI. The arrears in the account have mounted to the tune of Rs.1,46,492/-  as on date. 

          The opposite party No.1 submits that the opposite party No.1 bank officials have been following up with the complainant to regularize the account, and explained to her many time that the account is not eligible for subsidy under the CSIS. Inspite of repeated demands made by the opposite party bank officials, the complainant is not making any payment in the account.

          The opposite party No.1 submits that there is no cause of action to file the complaint and one  pleaded is not maintainable at all and  as such the filing of the complaint is not maintainable  at law and on the facts of the case.

          The opposite party bank further submits that the dispute raised by the complainant is not the consumer disputer  at all. In this context it is submitted and it is  also pertinent to note that the complainant made representation to the Banking Ombudsmen and suitable reply is also sent by this opposite  bank and the  banking ombudsmen closed the complaint under Section-13(a) of the Banking Ombudsmen Scheme by it’s order dated 13-07-2016.  Suppressing the said fact the complainant filed the said complaint before this Forum.  As there is no case on the part of the complainant at all the Banking Ombudsmen did not entertain such application also.  Suppressing   the real facts the complainant filed the said complaint before this Forum also on false allegations.

          The opposite party No.1 submits that the contra allegations against the 1^st opposite party bank denied the present complaint is devoid of merits  and filed with ulterior motive of delaying the recovery  proceedings initiated by the  1^st opposite party bank.  In the said circumstances the complainant is not entitled for any relief prayed by her and submits for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          4.       On behalf of  the complainant no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

          5.       On behalf of  opposite party No.1, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

          6.       On behalf of the complainant no written arguments filed and no oral  arguments  submitted.

          7.       On behalf of opposite parties written arguments filed.

          8.       Perused the written arguments filed  on behalf of the opposite parties.

          9.       The complainant  was absent continuously and no evidence was adduced  and no documents were marked.  Inspite of sufficient time, the complainant failed to submit arguments  and hence it is treated  that  complainant side of arguments heard.

          10.     Perused the records.

          11.     Arguments on behalf of  the learned counsels for the opposite parties heard.

.         12.     Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint filed by the complainant under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act  alleging deficiency of service by the opposite parties 1 and 2 is maintainable?

 

2. To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

          13.      POINT NO.1:The complainant filed  the complaint against the opposite parties that she availed education loan from the opposite party No.1  and EMI was fixed at Rs.13,587/- from 30-07-2014 and while  calculating the interest the opposite party No.1 included  the interest for the period from 21-06-2010 to  30-07-2014, whereas the  guidelines of  Indian Bank’s Association, Mumbai, the interest has to be accrued  during the period moratorium  subsides by the Central Government  under Central Scheme of interest subsided for education loans (CSIS) and inspite of  said circular  and instructions, the opposite parties did not fix the  instalment amount by giving benefits as per the circular and inspite of informing the same as the opposite parties failed to fix the fresh EMI.  The complainant filed her complaint against the opposite parties and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

            On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 relying upon evidence of R.W.1  and Exs.B1 to B5 as in the income of the father of the complaint is more than Rs.4,50,000/- as per Ex.B2  and as per Ex.B5 the annual income of the father of the complainant is more than Rs.4,50,000/-.  The complainant is not  entitled   for the benefits under Ex.B5 instructions and hence the complainant is not entitled for fixing of the fresh EMI  and hence he submits  to allow for  the  dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          In view of the arguments submitted  by the  learned counsels for the both parties, and as seen from the  records, the complainant did not adduce any evidence    and no documents were marked. The complainant  except filing of the complaint, the complainant did not adduce any evidence in support of her claim.

 

In Rangannagiri Yadavareddy Vs. Dr.Vijaya Kumari, 2001(2)CPJ 391 (NC)

 

          Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held  that “Averments in complaint by themselves cannot be accepted without evidence.”

          Following the above decision, we are of the opinion that  in the absence of any evidence in support of  contention of the complainant, the averment s of the  complaint cannot be taken into consideration to accept the contention of the complainant.

          Further as seen from the contents of Ex.B2, the  annual income of the father of the complainant is Rs.5,39,832/-.  The instructions issued under Ex.B5 at   Clause 3 reads as follows:

Criteria for Economically Weaker Section / Income Limit:

The benefit of the scheme would be applicable to those students belonging to economically weaker sections with an annual gross parental / family income with upper limit ofRs.4.5 lacs per year (from all sources).

As per Ex.B5,the father of the complainant is entitled for the benefits, the annual income  of the father of the complainant is should be less than Rs.4,50,000/- but as per Ex.B2 income tax returns, the father of the complainant is Rs.5,39,832/- as the income of the father of the complainant is more than Rs.4,50,000/-.  As per Ex.B2, we are of the opinion that the EMI fixed by the opposite partyNo.1 is in accordance with Ex.B5 instructions.  Hence by relying upon the above decision and the discussion made above, we are  of the opinion that the  complainant filed  by the complaint  against the opposite parties 1 and 2 is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.  In the way of the above said discussion, we answer this point against the  complainant and in favour of the  opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

14. POINT No.2:In view of our  answering on point No.1 against the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 has to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances no costs.

 

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  20^th day of  OCTOBER, 2017.

 

             Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                               Sd/-

      MEMBER                                MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

-Nil-

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1 -

07-12-2016

Sri Bharath N.V., S/o.Ramakrishna N.V. Branch Manger, Federal Bank Limited, Nellore Branch,SPSR Nellore district (Affidavit filed).

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

-Nil-                     

 

                  EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	10-06-2010	Photostat copy of  application  in favour of complainant issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B2  -	15-12-2009	Photostat copy of Statement of Income  in favour of Atmakuru Venkata Raja Mohan.
Ex.B3  -	06-08-2016	Computerized copy of Statement of Account from                21-06-2010 to 06-08-2016 showing pages 1 to 4.
Ex.B4  -	13-07-2016	Photostat copy of letter  from Office of the Banking Ombudsman (Andhra Pradesh  and Telangana) and Indian Banks’ Association, Mumbai  instructions.
Ex.B5  -	-	Attested copy of Central Scheme of Interest Subsidy for Educational Loans (CSIS).

 

 

                                                                                                             Id/-

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri Sk. Akber and Smt.P.  Rama Devi, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	Sri K. Sesha Reddy and Sri.K. Mallikarjuna, Advocates, Balaji Nagar, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: