IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 05th day of June, 2020
Filed on 22.06.2017
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.175/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. George Joseph 1. Branch Manager
S/o Joseph Thomas State Bank of India
Puthenpurackal Temple Road, Kachery Junction
Komana, Ambalappuzha, Ambalappuzha, Alappuzha
Alappuzha
2. Branch Manager
State Bank of India
RASMECEE, Changanachery
(Regional Centre of Loan)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
Complainant’s case recapitulated is as follows:-
Elder son of the complainant Kevin George passed Bachelor of Dental Surgery course and joined Master in Public health course at Australia. An amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was required for the course. There was a scheme known as “PADHO PARDESH” of the Govt of India under the Ministry of Minority affairs which is giving subsidy for the interest for Moratorium period of that educational loan. Complainant approached the
1st opposite party who is the Branch Manager, SBI, Temple Road, Kacheri Jn. Ambalappuzha for a loan amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. It was informed that the procedure for Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- are one and same and so as per the request of 1st Opposite party complainant decided to avail a loan of Rs.30 ,00,000/- on an under taking that interest will be waived during the moratorium period. Interest at the base rate of 9.3% and additional interest at the rate of 2.15% at floating rate was fixed and the total interest was 11.45%. After moratorium period of 3 years and deducting the interest the amount was to be repaid as 144 equal monthly instalments. After negotiations complainant decided to avail the loan and as per the demand of 1st opposite party 22 cents of property and house therein was given as security. On 6/11/2015 the loan was granted.
From 30/12/2015 onwards complainant visited the 1st opposite party on several times to know about the deduction in interest and it was informed that so far the interest accrued is Rs 1,98,702/- and that the bank has not received any information regarding deduction of interest.
Complainant availed the loan on the belief that he will get deduction in interest as per the scheme of Central Government. Due to the act of the opposite parties complainant was not able to avail the deduction in interest. Complainant sustained loss and so entitled to receive compensation and allied reliefs and hence the complaint.
2. Opposite parties filed a joined version mainly contending as follows:-
Complainant has approached this Forum for non receipt of interest subsidy under “PADHO PARDESH” scheme. The complainant had put up distorted facts and the averment that the loan availed is one coming under interest subsidy category is baseless. The complainant and his son are enjoying educational credit facility of Rs. 30,00,000/- with the opposite party. The complainant is a co-borrower to the educational loan. Loan amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was sanctioned on 16/11/2015 and secured by 8/10 ares of properties in Resurvey No. 373/30 in Block no.14 of Ambalappuzha village. Complainant and his son have availed the loan to the tune of Rs. 28,54,000/- and the present outstanding in the loan account is Rs. 31,57,000/- as on 12/7/2017. The loan is also collaterally secured by the personal guarantee of Smt. Annamma George, mother of the student. Sanction letter dtd. 16/11/2015 was handed over to the borrowers and they had put their signature in the original. There after security documents were executed by complainant and his wife. The borrowers were fully aware of the terms and conditions of the educational loan. As per the Padho pardesh scheme subsidy is restricted to the limits specified under IBA model scheme ie Rs. 20,00,000/- only.
The loan amount was disbursed stage wise as per the request of the complainant. At the time of availing loan the complainant had never raised any claim as raised in the complaint. The complaint is laid with malicious intentions so as to derive undue pecuniary benefits. It was not advised by the opposite party to the higher loan amount. Blank documents have not obtained as alleged. The borrowers are aware of the non availability of the subsidy. Having signed the loan documents and on utilization of the loan complainant is estopped from raising a contention that the facility of educational loan availed by the complainant is without interest. Hence the opposite party had not committed deficiency in service. Complainant has not sustained any loss and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. On the above pleadings following points arose for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled for deduction in interest for 3 years as per the scheme?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and Costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1and Ext.A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
Point No.1 and 2:-
For the sake of convenience these points are considered together.
Complainant filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked ExtA1 to A6.
The case of PW1, complainant is that as per Ext.A2 agreement on 16/11/2015 he availed a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- from the opposite party SBI for the educational purpose of his son Kevin George. It was a loan under the scheme Padho pardheshi in Ext.A1 scheme. The then manager assured that subsidy will be available for the interest at the moratorium period. However after availing the loan on enquiry it was revealed that there was no subsidy credited in his account and hence has filed the complaint for getting the subsidy in interest and compensation. In support of his contentions Ext. A1 to A6 were marked. On the other hand Opposite parties filed a joint version contenting that as per IBA model scheme subsidy is restricted to Rs. 20,00,000/-. Since the loan sanctioned in this case is Rs. 30,00,000/-, complainant is not entitled for subsidy. PW1 produced Ext.A4 statement showing that some banks have granted subsidy deductions in education loan for more than 30,00,000/- and so he is also entitled for subsidy. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party relying upon the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997, Supreme Court 954 (M/s Fabril Gasosa. Vs. Labour Commissioner and others) pointed out that since PW1had signed Ext.A2 agreement, now he cannot turned round and content otherwise. In other words PW1is bound by the terms and conditions of Ext.A2 agreement and his contentions are hit by Sec.91and 92 of Indian Evidence Act.
As discussed earlier the dispute of PW1 is that though he went to the bank for a loan of Rs. 20 ,00,000/- the Branch manager made him to believe that subsidy in interest is available for loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- also and so he availed said loan. Contrary to the assurance given subsidy was not granted and hence the complaint was filed. So the dispute in this case centers around granting of subsidy in the interest. The fact that PW1 availed educational loan as per Ext.A1 scheme is not disputed. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties is that granting of subsidy is not a service and so complainant is not a consumer. In support of this contention he relied up on a decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission reported in 2013 (1) CPJ 668NC. It was held that subsidy offered to be paid is not service as defined in Consumer Protection Act. 1986. The same view was reiterated by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Madanlal Vs. Punsup Gas service and 2 others. In view of the above settled law it is crystal clear that complainant who is claiming subsidy in interest is not a consumer as defined u/s 2( 1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In other words being not a consumer complainant is not entitled to get a relief from this forum. In the circumstances complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this forum and so these points are found against him.
Point No.3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 05th day of June, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholly.P.R.(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - George Joseph(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Padho Pardesh Clarification book let.
Ext.A2 - Agreement.
Ext.A3 - Statement of Account from 29-12-2015 to 31-3-2017 .
Ext.A4 - List of 506 selected students for award of Interest subsidy
Ext.A5 - SBI Student Loan Scheme.
Ext.A6 - SBI Student Loan Scheme.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
