DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Dated the 24th day of March, 2018
C.D. Case No. 126 of 2016
Ms. Suchismita Sahoo
D/O Khageswar Sahoo
At- Pahimahura
Po- Barikpur Bazar
Ps- Dhamnagar
Dist- Bhadrak ………Petitioner/Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
121/22 New Station Square
Unit- III, Bhubaneswar
Dist- Khordha
2. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Nalanga Branch
At/Po- Nalanga
Ps- Bhadrak (R)
Dist- Bhadrak ………………Opposite Parties
For Complainant- Mr. Niranjan Sahoo
For OP No- 1 & 2- Mr. Narayan Prasad Dash & Associates
Date of Hearing-10.10.2017
Date of Order- 24.03.2018
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
The dispute arose out of complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The facts of the complaint are that the complainant had availed an education loan to pursue her study as a student of Diploma in Nursing midwifery at Bhubaneswar from OP No. 1. OP No. 1 had sanctioned a sum of Rs 2,22,616/- in the year 2010 as against which disbursed Rs 1,87,616 on different dates in phase manner. As such the complainant has availed a total loan of Rs 1,87,616/- from OP No. 1 Bank. The complainant successfully completed the Nursing course in the year 2013 from Kalinga School of Nursing, Bhubaneswar but failed to get a job till yet and the complainant has not stopped trying for a Govt. Job and sitting idle at home. But on dt. 09.10.2015, the opposite party issued a letter/notice to the complainant directing her to pay Rs 2,97,718/- at a go failing which legal proceeding would be initiated against complainant for recovery of the loan so disbursed. On having the notice, the father of the complainant visited OP No. 1 to report about the present status of the borrower and how she remained at home without any Job which caused delay in starting repayment. However after a threadbare discussion with OP No. 1 complainant wanted exemption on interest on the loan which may enable him to pay back the entire amount outstanding under principle to OP and accordingly the father of the complainant also submitted a representation in writing to OP on 04.05.2016 requesting acceptance of the proposal which was verbally accepted and assured to communicate shortly. But OP No. 1 did not take any step, inspite of repeated requests, for communicating permission to repay the loan under principal only and preferred to remain silent. Unfortunately the OP instead of extending helping hand, served a notice upon the complainant on dt. 09.10.2015 directing her to repay a sum of Rs 2,97,718/- along with up to date interest within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice failing which legal action would be initiated against the complainant.
On having such notice from OP, complainant once again approached the OP No. 1 to exempt interest on the loan as per interest subsidy provision of the scheme so as to enable him to clear the loan at a go but the OP No. 1 did not pay any heed to the persistent request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service. Being disappointed complainant preferred to file dispute in this Forum praying for relief.
Opposite parties resisted the complaint and contested the case. In the written versions, O.Ps have raised the question of maintainability of the dispute on the ground of cause of action, non-joinder of Khageswar Sahoo, the father of the complainant as a necessary party, mis-joinder of OP No. 2 and lacks territorial jurisdiction as the disbursing Bank is situated at Bhubaneswar. Furthermore it is also stated by O.Ps. That the father of the complainant has not consulted OP No. 2 for a study loan who suggested him to contact OP No. 1 for such loan and the complainant has to prove it strictly. O.Ps have also denied the frequent contact with the OP No. 1 by the father of the complainant and has never proposed to repay the entire loan if interest subsidy is given to him and the O.Ps have denied all the allegations made in the complainant against them and prayed the Forum to dismiss the case due to lack of merit.
Gone through the complaint and written version of O.Ps, perused materials on record and heard the parties to this case. In the matter of cause of action the complainant pleaded that the cause of action arose on 04.05.2016 when the father of the complainant submitted a written application to OP No. 1 being physically present there at Bhubaneswar Branch Office, and on 12.10.2015 when the complainant received a notice from OP No. 1 asking payment of entire loan outstanding within a period of 15 days. On the other hand O.Ps vehemently objected to the pleadings of complainant in submitting that service of notice for repayment, recovery, persuasions and recall of entire loan together with interest and other charges in the event of default in payment of installments falls within the recovery process and the O.Ps have performed their duty with due diligence which should not be treated as the date of cause of action. Secondly as regards submission of an application for exemption of interest should in no way be considered as the cause of action as submission of a grievance petition is the right of the complainant but demanding undue relief is bad in law. Hence there is no cause of action to file the dispute. Heard the parties to this case and on perusal of materials on record it is observed that the actual cause of action arose when the complainant submitted a petition to OP No. 1 on dt. 04.05.2016 and may be the prayer in the application was undue and unfair, OP No. 1 had to respond in denying to fulfill the demand. But the OP No. 1 did not make a single correspondence with the complainant with regards to grievance petition which is considered as negligence of OP No. 1 and also amounts to deficiency of service. As such the cause of action is held to have arisen on 04.05.2016. Hence the objection of O.Ps is not sustainable.
As regards mis-joinder of OP No. 2 it is also submitted by the complainant that when he was in need of money to meet the study expenses she insisted upon her father to avail a loan from the Bank for the purpose of pursuing her study. Her father, being a permanent resident within the operational area or service area of OP No. 2, contacted first for such loan who advised to contact Bhubaneswar Branch of OP No. 2 Bank where the education loan is provided to needy meritious students. Being a ordinary man without having through knowledge in Banking, how could he know that there is a Branch of Indian Overseas Bank at Bhubaneswar from where the education loan could be available. On the contrary, O.Ps submitted that OP No. 2 has played no role in the entire process of advancing the loan, and therefore OP No. 2 is a mis-joinder to this case. From the pleadings of both the parties and on perusal of material evidence on record, it is crystal clear that OP No. 2 is a necessary party to this case and there is territorial jurisdiction of this Forum for adjudication. Hence the objection raised by O.Ps is not sustainable.
The complainant submitted in stating that with the credit support provided by OP No. 1, she completed her nursing course successfully and passed out from the institute in July, 2013 but did not find a job to earn her lively hood till date. Although the loan scheme contains the provision for repayment of said loan, the complainant had to repay the loan after six months of getting the job or just after one year from the date of completion of nursing course. As the complainant has not yet got any job permanent in nature, it is not practically possible on her part to start repayment of the loan as per condition stipulated in the loan scheme. However when she felt the probability of getting a job in near future is much less, she opted for interest exemption under the provisions of clause 4, 5 and 6 of the scheme issued by OP No. 1and proposed to repay the loan, after interest rebate, to the Bank at a go. OP No. 1 neither accepted the proposal of the complainant nor expressed their view which clearly amounts to deficiency of service. In objecting the submissions of complainant O.Ps submitted that the interest subsidy scheme is applicable to those customers who start repayment on or before due date and continue such payment without default would be entitled to such benefit. But in the instant case, the complainant has not started repayment which was to be started during August, 2014 and therefore she is not entitled to any interest exemption benefit. Heard both the parties in course of hearing and perused materials on record. No where it is mentioned in the scheme that the interest subsidy benefit cannot be extended to him who has not started repayment within due date or has defaulted in repayment of loan installments. The criteria for availing interest subsidy benefit is that the income of the complainant must not exceed Rs 4.50 lakhs per annum i.e. he/she would fall within the economically weaker section as reveals from the certificate issued by Tahasildar Dhamnagar Vide miscase No- 101 of 2011 on dt. 15.02.2011. Therefore the complainant is entitled to interest exemption as per scheme. Thus the objection filed by OP No. 1 is not sustainable and the complainant must get such privilege from the O.Ps. Hence the OP No. 1 is found negligent in providing proper service to the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is partly allowed against the O.Ps. OP No. 1 is directed to allow the complainant to avail interest subsidy under the said education loan scheme as per clause- 6 of loan scheme and communicate to the complainant so as to enable her for repayment of the loan. The complainant is also directed to repay the loan within 30 days from the date of obtaining of the exact amount of loan to be paid from OP No. 1. Both the parties are directed to act accordingly without violation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this 24th day of March, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
