BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 27/2007 against C.C.  758/2005, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad  

Between:

T. Bharath Chandra

S/o. T.V. Subba Rao

Age: 28 years, Sales Manager

Rep. by GPA holder T.V. Subba Rao

S/o. Late T. Purnachander Rao

R/o. 8-11/9, Ravindra Nagar

Habsiguda, Hyderabad.                              ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                 Complainant

                                                                    And

1).  The Manager

Andhra Bank

Ramanthapur Branch

Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Manager

Andhra Bank

Sultan Bazar Branch

Hyderabad.                                                            ***                        Respondents/

                                                                                                 Ops.  

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. M. Krishna Reddy

Counsel for the Resps:                                M/s. K. Sridhar Rao.

CORAM:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

                                      SMT. M. SREESHA, LADY MEMBER

&

                                          SRI K. SATYANAND,  MEMBER

FRIDAY, THIS THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER  TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                Dissatisfied with the  inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Dist. Forum  the complainant   preferred this appeal.

2)                 The case of the complainant  in  brief is that   he secured a seat in  M.Sc (BITS)  in Middlesex University, London for the academic year 2002-2003.  He had to pay  7790 UK  pounds.  He availed educational loan facility from R1 bank which in turn transferred the loan account to R2 for issuance of  a foreign demand draft (FDD) as R1 is not having  forex facility.   R2 issued two DDs   Dt. 5.8.2002  in favour of  Middlesex University, London.   When he handed over the said DD to the  university authorities  they in turn deposited for realization of the amount, however they were dishonoured.   Despite repeated  issuance of DDs  they were dishonoured due to negligence of respondents.   The  university authorities suspected his integrity.  His father at Hyderabad  repeatedly approached  R2 for revalidation, however unsuccessfully.    The university authorities also informed that  if the amount was not paid he would not be permitted to sit for the examinations.   Finally the DD was honoured  on 5.8.2003 after one year and the university authorities  rescheduled the  course to the next academic year 2003-2004, thereby he lost one academic year.    He extended his visa for one more year.  He was forced to spend for his stay at London.   He lost salary for one year.  He claimed an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. 

3)                 The respondent bank resisted the case.    While admitting availment of educational loan by the complainant from R1 bank  as it is not having  forex facility  and R2 issuing  Foreign Demand Draft (FDD)  on 5.8.2002 in favour of  Middlesex University, London drawn on  Lyods Bank,  London alleged that  despite their confirmation,  Lyods Bank did not honour  nor returned  the DD.  As desired by the father of the complainant, it has addressed a letter  on  12.6.2003  to the Vice-Chancellor of  the   university confirming  issuance of  DD,  and finally   remitting  the amount  directly  to the account of the university by wire transfer.    The complainant  admitted in one  year course.   In  fact, the  complainant  by  his  letter   Dt.  16.11.2004

 informed them that the course was completed  and that he was continuing  another course  in  Diploma in Business Administration,  and  requested to reschedule the loan payable after  February, 2006.    There was no mention about loss of  one year or  discontinuation of studies.  On the other hand it  shows  that  he was pursuing  higher education.   The complaint was  motivated, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal stating that the very award itself  will  suffice.   

4)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A12 marked,   while the bank filed the affidavit evidence of its Senior Branch Manager and got Exs. B1 to B6 marked. 

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that  the DDs issued by the bank were dishonoured twice and for  an year the amount he could not pay the fee to the university.  This  would amount to deficiency in service  on the part of bank  and awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 

6)                 Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the amount awarded  by the Dist. Forum is very low.   It did not consider the fact that he was forced to stay for one more year and spent the amount for staying in London.  He lost earnings  for one year.    He was forced to spend additionally an amount of Rs. 5,00,600/- towards accommodation, vide Ex. A2.   He was forced to pay Rs. 63,400/- towards interest.   He could not get  employment  for one year and thus suffered loss of income to an extent of Rs. 9 lakhs.   He spent Rs. 3 lakhs for completion of the course  by extending visa  for one more year.   He is entitled to  Rs. 20 lakhs  as claimed by him. 

7)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any more compensation than that was awarded by the Dist. Forum?

8)                 It is an undisputed fact that the complainant secured  admission in M.Sc (BITS)  in Middlesex University, London for the academic year 2002-2003 availing   the educational loan facility from the respondent bank.  The bank  had issued DDs for  7790 UK pounds under Ex. A1  in the name of  Middlesex  University, London  payable through Lyods Bank, London.  It is not known  why the  Lyods Bank did not honour the DDs.  It  repeatedly returned, due to which,   the bank was forced to revalidate.  Finally when the amount could not be paid  for whatever reason  the bank  itself wrote a letter on  12.6.2003 informing the Vice-Chancellor of the university  confirming  the issuance of DDs.   It had finally sent the amount to the account of the university  by wire transfer evident from  Exs. B1 to B3. 

9)                 The complainant alleges that in view of abnormal delay in payment of  fee   the university had suspected his bonfaides,   and in view of the fact that  he could not pay  by due date,  the academic year was rescheduled for one more year  and  he was forced to stay in  London  spending  the amounts for his stay etc.      Except the assertion of the complainant, the documents filed by  him  do not show  that the university did not permit him to sit for the examinations  nor the academic year was rescheduled to the next year 2003-2004.   On the other hand, Ex. A5,   Results & Credit Statement  issued by  Middlesex University  shows that  he studied M.Sc (BITS) for the academic year 2002-2003.  He pursued further studies in  Diploma in Business Administration.   There is no whisper that he was not allowed to sit  for the examinations of  2002-2003 academic year nor rescheduled his education for delayed payment of fee.   This aspect is evident  from letter  Ex. A11 issued by

the university and the  degree  of M.Sc  in  Business Information Technology awarded by the university  on 28.1.2004.     He himself by letter Ex. B5  Dt. 16.11.2004 informed the bank stating “ I have successfully  completed the course for which I am thankful to the bank for the financial assistance provided.  Copy of the certificate awarding  the Master Degree in Business Information Technology  by Middlesex  University is herewith enclosed.. ..   In view of continuation of my education, I request you to postpone the commencement of repayment of my  educational loan till the completion of the above course i.e., February, 2006.”  

10)              There is no whisper as to the postponement  of his academic year  for non-payment of fee  by due date.   The complainant had undoubtedly suppressed whatever the correspondence transpired between him and the university.     A letter showing   rescheduling of his academic year in view of non-payment of fee by due date  was not filed.  Had such a categorical mention was made in any of the letters undoubtedly, the complainant could have been awarded what all he spent  due to delay  in payment of fee.   He having pursued  his  further education and secured visa  now he cannot turn round and claim the amount.   Undoubtedly  there is undue delay on the part of bank to see that the amount covered under the DDs was paid to the university authorities  in time.  This  is  ex-facie deficiency in service on its part for which it was liable to compensate for the mental agony caused to the complainant.   

11)              The Dist. Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- which we feel  is just and modest in the circumstances of the case.  The claim for  Rs. 20 lakhs  is unjust in the sense that  the complainant could not prove that due to delay  in payment of  fee his academic year was rescheduled and  that he was forced to stay for one more year.  When there is no specific evidence  and  on the other hand in the light of Ex. B5 letter, we are of the opinion that  the complainant did not sustain any loss either in respect of  academic year or  future prospects in securing  job etc.   There is neither loss of earnings nor he spent the amount  for his stay at  London.   Therefore, we do not see any merits in the appeal. 

12)               In the result the appeal  is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances of the case no costs.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

MEMBER            

3)           _________________________________

 MEMBER

                                                                   Dt.  18.  09.  2009.

*pnr