Ld. Advocate(s)

                                    For Complainant: Joydip Majumder

                                    For OP/OPs :Sukhen Kumar Dutta

            Date of filing of the case                      :01.12.2020

            Date of Disposal  of the case              :20.02.2024

Final Order / Judgment dtd.20.02.2024

The basic  facts of the case of the complainants is that  the complainant Atanu Bikash Bhador took one Educational Loan  for his daughter complainant No.2 Ankhi Bhador for her study under scheme of CSIS of  Government of India for Rs.6,05,000/- having loan amount no.087051031063 from the OP Branch  Manager, Dena Bank, Krishnagar. Subsequently,  both the complainants applied  for the said loan to meet  the expenditure  of B. Tech course under University  of

(2)

CC/186/2020

Engineering  and Management  Joypur, Rajasthan. The OP  paid the said loan  for each semester  by debiting directly  from the loan account.  The condition of the said scheme  is that during the course time plus one year were coherent  future of educational loan  scheme and the said period  was declared  as moratorium  during which no interest  is required  to be paid  and it would be  paid by the Government of India from the 2009 as subsidy to reduce  the future burden upon the student whose parental  course income  is less than 4.5 lakh per annum. The date of transactions are 11.01.2016, 29.07.2016, 06.08.2016, 03.09.2016, 18.02.2017 and 17.09.2017. From the subsequent, financial year that is 2014-2015 the subsidy  was suddenly suspended  without any fault of the aspirant . The complainants contacted with the OP Bank  and came to know  that a technical  defect arose due to negligence of the bank  and the loan  account was wrongly  open  in a different scheme which is unfair trade practice. Due to such negligence  of OP  the said loan account of the complainants turned NPA and the Cybil  score  of the complainants  reduced.  Therefore, the fixed deposit  of Rs.1,27,597/- had been liquidated  illegally.  After enquiry  the OP informed  through mail that “account no. 087051031063 of Miss Ankhi Bhador has  to be  opened in a scheme  which does not demand interest during  moratorium  but it has been  wrongly opened in different schemes, in which the interest account is demanded in every month and reduced  to slipping  the account to NPA vide branch memo dated 25.01.2017. The OP  also suggested  to shift  the loan on MCLR. Subsequently,  the OP without considering  anything  sent a demand  notice for payment  of Rs.1,31,012/-. So, the complainants also sent a letter to OP claiming  the sanction letter and the EMI of the loan. The OP then sent a clarification  dated 17.10.2019 vide memo no.BB/KSN/EDU/Clarification/OL 4085/2019-2020 addressed to the complainants. So the complainants  are not supposed  to pay any interest during the course period  and moratorium period. The OP authority made a further demanded by letter dated 25.09.2020 to deposit  Rs.1,20,000/-against which the complainants deposited  the said amount on 25.09.2020. Therefore,  the complainants  filed the present case. The cause of action arose on 25.09.2020 and on subsequent dates  till the filing  of the case.  The complainants  prayed for  an award  directing the OP to create  the subsidy  as per the scheme and refund  the alleged interests  charged during moratorium  period of compound  interest rate till the repayment of the loan, compensation  for Rs.4.5 lakh  for financer loan  and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards  litigation cost.

The OP  contested  the case  by filing W/V wherein  they denied major allegations  and challenged the case  as not a consumer

(3)

CC/186/2020

dispute.  OP also claimed that this Commission has no jurisdiction  to try the case since it would be referred to the Ombudsman. The positive defence  case of the  OP in brief is that the  present case is filed to evade  the liability.  The complainants  voluntarily  applied for the loan after knowing all the terms and conditions . In the sanction  letter dated 16.07.2014 it is clearly  written that  this scheme  was under Dena Biddya Laxmi Educational Loan Scheme. The mentioning  of CSIS scheme under Government of India  is nowhere  in the sanctioned letter. The OP has not practiced  any unfair trade practice . The said e-mail  was sent from Krishnagar Branch  Kolkata Region, Zonal Office.  The said e-mail document is an unauthenticated document obtained through improper method . The relationship  between the  parties  is like debtors and creditors. So, Commission has no jurisdiction  to adjudicate  the dispute. Only the civil court is the proper forum  for redressal  of the grievance. So, the OP  claimed  that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

On the basis of the conflicting pleadings  of both the parties  the Commission considers  necessary  to ascertain  following points for adjudication  of the dispute.

Points for Determination

Point No.1.

          Whether the  case is maintainable  in its present form and prayer.

Point No.2.

          Whether the complainant  is entitled to get the relief prayed for.

Point No.3.

          To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1.

The OP has challenged the case as not maintainable  on the ground  that the  relation between the parties is like debtor and creditor.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued  that the complainants  obtained  the loan for her daughter under the Central Government Scheme which is central sector   subsidy  education loan. After  perusing the pleadings  of the parties and the materials  in the case record it appears that the relation between the parties is like consumer and service provider .

(4)

CC/186/2020

The territorial jurisdiction  as well as the pecuniary jurisdiction  also come within the purview of the C.P Act.  So, considering  all the facts and circumstances  the Commission  is  of the firm opinion  that  the case is not barred under  any provision  of law  and falls within the purview  of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2&3.

Both the points are very closely interlinked with each other and as such these are  taken up together  for brevity  and convenience of discussion.

The complainants  claimed that her daughter  complainant no.2 Ankhi Bhador took one educational loan under the scheme CSIS.

The OP admitted  in cross-examination that the  complainants  had taken  the loan for education purpose but he stated further that it was under Dena Biddya Laxmi Educational Loan  Scheme.

The complainant  in order to substantiate the case proved  some documents. As per Annexure-A name  of the scheme  is CSIS wherein  it is stated inter-alia that interest payable on the educational loan for the moratorium  period that is course period  last one year will be borne  by the Government of India  after the period of moratorium  interest  on the outstanding  loan amounts shall be paid  by the student.

So, the defence plea that  it was under the different schemes  and loan interest is payable by the complainants are not acceptable.  The loan account statement also discloses  that the name of the scheme is CSIS.  One bank receipt  filed by the complainants  shows  that complainant no.2 has deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- which was  acknowledged  by the OP through Annexure no.J.

The complainants raised  the question as to how the loan account which was opened under CSIS scheme  has been turned into a different scheme even after crediting  the Government subsidy  in various times. Due to such unfair demand the loan account turned into NPA and the Cybil of the complainants became  bad. The OP in cross-examination  admitted in answer no. 8  that if the loan is under CSIS scheme  subject to terms and conditions keeping in view  the guidelines  of such  scheme , question of subsidy  shall be determined  by the Central Government. The OP also  admitted  that following the general break  of the subsidy  for the year 2014-2015 it was credited  to the account. But except for the same  no subsidy was credited  according to the  sanction letter dated 16.07.2014.

The OP tried to show it in different scheme  against which one question  was put as to whether  on 25.01.2017 as reminder  II, the OP

(5)

CC/186/2020

had disclosed  the observation  and sent a mail to higher authority and stated that the account no. 087051031063 of Miss Ankhi Bhador  as it has to be opened  in a scheme,  which does not demand interest during moratorium and course  period but it has been  wrongly  opened in different schemes  in which the interest  amounts  is demanding every month  and leads  to slipping  the account to NPA.  The OP answered that as mentioned in the caption mail itself which has been  obtained from legitimate  source. The same was in dispute and nothing was misrepresentation. It was in the stage of communication  and inquisition  while after perusing  the sanction letter  dated 16.07.2014 and application form no technical  irregularities  were found  and can be referred  that no such scheme  was required  to be followed.

The answer given leads  to hold that the communication  can be considered  as the basis for claim of the complainants  justified  and there is no basis that it was from illegitimate  source.  It is further found from the  interrogatories  that on 02.12.2022 an amount of Rs.1,39,125/- was credited  to the accounts of the complainants  under the CSIS scheme.

If, there is  any fault as alleged , there is nothing to show  that the complainants  has caused misrepresentation of any fact which led to the  alleged wrong.

The status of the  complainants are a student and it is the goal of the government subsidy  that no students  desiring  to peruse higher education  is denied the opportunity  based on their economic  conditions.

So, it is not clear  as to how the CSIS scheme  was turned into Dena Vidya Lakshmi  Education  Scheme.

It is also found  that  the complainants  categorically  answered in reply  to the interrogatories  in question no.8 that the loan was under CSIS scheme that is  why  the OP Bank  approved the education  loan. The complainant  further answered  that the complainants were not bound  to pay the EMI in every month which is mentioned in the CSIS scheme. The complainants further answered in cross-examination  that the  OP Bank illegally  suspended  the credit of CSIS without any fault of the complainants  and one fixed deposit of Rs.1,27,597/- has been  liquidated illegally.

Answer given in cross-examination  has a special effect. Any answer which supports the case of the complainants  in cross-examination it has a strong effect  in the positive  case of the complainants. The complainant further answered  in reply  to cross-examination that the complainants were not bound to give EMI at the time of running  the course  and after completed  one year of the course  duration.

(6)

CC/186/2020

In cross-examination  the complainants answered  as to why the loan of the complainants became overdue  by stating  categorically  that the OP Bank illegally  suspended  the credit  of CSIS subsidy without  any fault of the complainants.  He further  answer in cross-examination  that due to illegal activity of the OP Bank the loan account became  NPA but the complainants paid extra money  and cleared  all the amount of overdue  from NPA.

The complainants  further stated  in answer to cross-examination  that due to illegal  activity of the OP Bank the account became NPA and illegally  the Cybil  course became bad.

The OP raised question  as to veracity  of the e-mail  but the complainants specifically  answered  in cross-examination  that the complainants no.1 &2 got the e-mail  from the bank Manager  of Dena Bank, Krishnagar Branch and he repeatedly  stated in cross-examination  that it was obtained  from the bank.

Thus in addition to the  pleadings  and the evidence,  the complainants  successfully  proved the case  by strengthening  it through answer  to the cross-examination.

Thus in the backdrop  of the aforesaid  assessment  of evidence and the observation  made hereinabove  there is sufficient  ground for filing this case and the opposite parties  have acted  in a manner which tantamounts to deficiency in service  for which they should be compensated.

The aforesaid  finding  leads to hold  the Commission  that the complainants  successfully  proved  the case against the  OP.

Accordingly, point no.2&3 are answered  in affirmative.

Consequently,  the complaint  case succeeds  on contest with cost.

Hence,

                              It is

Ordered

that the complaint case no.CC/186/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest  with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). The complainants do get an award  against the  OP with a direction  to credit  the subsidy  as per the scheme  of the Government  of India  and refund  the interest charged  during the moratorium period, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) towards unfair trade practice  and mental pain  and agony. The OPs

(7)

CC/186/2020

are directed to pay Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand) to the complainants  within 30 days from the date of the final order failing which  the entire award money shall carry an interest  @8% p.a  from the date of final order till the date of its realisation.

All Interim Applications  (I.A) stand disposed of  accordingly.

D.A to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.

Dictated & corrected by me

 ............................................

                PRESIDENT

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)                                        ................ ..........................................

                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                                  (Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)

I  concur,

 ........................................                                                 

          MEMBER                                                                

(NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)