SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

            The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s. 12 of erstwhile C.P. Act, 1986 (here-in-after called as the “C.P. Act - 1986”), alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Balasore, OP No.2 is the Regional Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhubaneswar and OP No.4 is the Secretary, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

2.         The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has availed a study loan from the OP No.1 bank to the tune of Rs.2,08,000.00 for his higher study and his father and mother were guarantors. OP No.1 for the purpose of verification, retained the original Registered Sale Deed No.5589 dated 26.12.1995, Kisam conversion document in Form-27 and did not return the same. It is stated that the father of the complainant regularly used to repay the monthly instalment @ Rs.6,500.00 instead of Rs.5,784.00 in favour of OP No.1 bank from his current account till 3.7.2015. It is further stated that on 22.3.2014, the complainant received one letter from OP No.1 wherein the complainant was instructed to submit the Income Certificate to cover under subsidy scheme for education loan and accordingly, the complainant submitted the Income certificate and SEBC certificate in the office of OP No.1. But OP No.1 has not intentionally deposited the subsidy interest in the deposit head of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,80,000.00 from 31.3.2009 to 31.12.2013. On 14.7.2015, the complainant collected the account statement of the loan in question and found gross irregularities in calculating the interest and did not update education loan of Central Govt., interest subsidy scheme as on 31.12.2013 for educational loans availed up to 31.3.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013. It is further averred that on 6.8.2015, the complainant received one letter of OP No.1 wherein it has been stated that the complainant has not made any payment since 1.6.2015 and a sum of Rs.14,285.91 was outstanding instalment amount, whereas the account statement dated 14.7.2015 shows that the complainant has made last payment of Rs.6,500.00 on 3.7.2015 and the total amount paid by him was Rs.2,76,295.00 against the loan amount plus Rs.1,80,000.00 subsidy amount. Thus the complainant is yet to receive Rs.53,452.00 up to August, 2015 from OP No.1. Apart from it, the OP No.1 has retained the registered sale deed, conversion document and did not return the same in spite of written request, did not debiting the Central Govt. subsidy interest availed from 31.3.2009 to 31.12.2013, calculating irregular interest is nothing but deficiency in service.

            The cause of action to file this case arose on 14.7.2015, when the complainant obtained the print out of loan account statement and found gross irregularities and on 6.8.2015, when the complainant received letter from OP No.1 wherein he was threatening to charge penal interest. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file this case with the prayer stated in his complaint petition. Hence, this case.

            To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-

1. Photo copy of letter of OP No.1 in favour of complainant.
2. Photo copy of address mentioned in the envelope.
3. Photo copy of Subsidy scheme.
4. Photo copy of letters of complainant in favour of OP No.1.
5. Photo copy of Caste Certificate.
6. Photo copy of Income Certificate.
7. Photo copy of letter of complainant in favour of OP No.1 for returning of documents.
8. Photo copy of letter dated 6.8.2015 of OP No.1 in favour of complainant.  
9. Photo copy of letter of Govt. of India.
10. Photo copy of letter of State Govt.
11. Photo copy of account statement.
12. Photo copies of letter of the father of complainant issued to OP No.1.
13. Photo copy of letter of OP No.1 issued to father of complainant.
14. Original cheque.

3.         On receipt of notice, OP No.1 & 2 made their appearance and filed their joint written version whereas OP No.4 did not appear and set ex parte, as revealed from the order sheet dated 20.6.2016.

4.         OP No.1 & 2 filed their written version jointly. In their written version, the Ops have not only challenged the maintainability of the case but also stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case. The present Ops have stated that the complainant is not a consumer under their bank, but admitted regarding avail of loan by the complainant and his father and mother were guarantors. The Ops have denied that till date the complainant is unemployed. The complainant has never deposited any original documents before their Bank or any mortgage with the Bank and the question of depositing RSD and other documents before the OP No.1-Bank for education loan does not arise as the loan amount sanctioned in favour of the complainant is below Rupees Four lakhs. The Ops have specifically stated that the complainant has availed the educational loan on 17.4.2008 for an amount of Rs.2.08 Lakhs. The complainant used to pay his dues irregularly since 31.4.2014, as shown in the loan account statement. The complainant, with a view to divert of repayment of loan outstanding, has filed this case. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

            In view of the above averments of the parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?

(ii)        Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?

(iii)       Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law?

(iv)       Whether there is any deficiency-in-service on the part of the Ops?

(v)        To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?   

F I N D I N G S

5.         First of all, it is to be decided as to whether the complainant is a consumer which is required under the law. It is made out from the materials submitted on behalf of the complainant that he has availed one study loan for self from the OP No.1-Bank for his higher study wherein his parent were stood as guarantors. The contesting Ops have admitted that the complainant has availed study loan from OP No.1-Bank. Therefore, it is held that the complainant is a consumer.

6.         Learned counsel for the complainant urged that the complainant has availed a study loan from the OP No.1-Bank to the tune of Rs.2,08,000.00 for his higher study and his parent were guarantors. For the purpose of verification, OP No.1-Bank retained the original Registered Sale Deed No.5589 dated 26.12.1995, Kisam conversion document in Form-27 and did not return the same. It is stated that the father of the complainant regularly used to repay the monthly instalment @ Rs.6,500.00 instead of Rs.5,784.00 in favour of OP No.1 bank from his current account till 3.7.2015. It is further submitted that on 22.3.2014, the complainant received one letter from OP No.1-Bank wherein the complainant was instructed to submit the Income Certificate to cover under subsidy scheme for education loan and thus, the complainant submitted the Income certificate and SEBC certificate in the office of OP No.1. But OP No.1-Bank has not deposited the subsidy interest in the deposit head of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,80,000.00 from 31.3.2009 to 31.12.2013. On 14.7.2015, the complainant collected the account statement of the loan in question and found gross irregularities in calculating the interest and did not update education loan of Central Government interest subsidy scheme as on 31.12.2013 for educational loans availed up to 31.3.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013. It is further averred that on 6.8.2015, the complainant received one letter of OP No.1 wherein it has been stated that the complainant has not made any payment since 1.6.2015 and a sum of Rs.14,285.91 was outstanding instalment amount, whereas the account statement dated 14.7.2015 shows that the complainant has made last payment of Rs.6,500.00 on 3.7.2015 and the total amount paid by him was Rs.2,76,295.00 against the loan amount plus Rs.1,80,000.00 subsidy amount. Thus the complainant is yet to receive Rs.53,452.00 up to August, 2015 from OP No.1. Apart from it, the OP No.1 has retained the registered sale deed, conversion document and did not return the same in spite of written request and also did not debiting the Central Government subsidy interest availed from 31.3.2009 to 31.12.2013.

7.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting Ops submitted that the complainant has availed the educational loan on 17.4.2008 for a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- and used to pay the dues irregularly since 31.4.2014. Further, the OP No.1-Bank has not kept the Registered Sale Deed in question and other documents at the time of sanction of study loan as there was no provision to obtain any documents from the person who availed loan for higher study. That apart, the loan amount sanctioned in favour of the complainant is below Rs.4,00,000/-; so no document for the purpose of mortgage is required. The complainant, instead of repaying the outstanding dues has filed this case only with a view to grab the money of a financial institution. 

8.         From the above rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties, it is to be decided as to whether the complainant has cause of action to tile the case, whether the case is maintainable, and whether deficiency in service attributes against the Ops. In order to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is felt just and proper to test the veracity of the case of both the parties.

9.         First of all, as it has been stated by the complainant that after the sanction of education loan, the OP No.1-Bank insisted to verify the proof of residence i.e. original Registered Sale deed and Kisam conversion document in Form-27. It is further stated by the complainant that there is no need of any mortgage/ document wherein the education loan is less than Rupees Five Lakhs. But the complainant has failed to satisfy this Commission as to when the complainant gathered his knowledge that no mortgage or document is required for sanction of educational loan below Rupees Five Lakhs. If it is held to be true, then under what compelling circumstances the complainant handed over the original Registered Sale Deed and Conversion document in Form-27 to OP No.1-Bank. He should have handed over the photocopy of those documents, if at all, for verification of the address. That apart, before sanction of loan in question, the concerned Bank must have maintained all perpherlenia and after sanction of loan, why the concerned Bank call for any original document to test the nativity or others. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce any document to prove that he has actually supplied the original documents to OP No.1-Bank, as stated above. On the other hand, from the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, it is clearly made out that the father of the complainant has deposited the Registered Sale deed along with other documents before the OP No.1-Bank for sanction of housing loan in his name and not for the study loan in favour of the complainant. 

10.       Further, it is stated by the complainant that OP No.1-Bank sanctioned a study loan to the tune of Rs.2,08,000/- in his favour for his higher study on 17.4.2008 wherein his parent were stood as guarantors. His father used to pay the monthly instalment @ Rs.6500/- to the Bank from his current account regularly till 3.7.2015. It is stated that on 22.3.2014, the complainant received one letter from OP No.1 wherein he was instructed to submit the income certificate with a view to cover him under subsidy scheme for education loan availed up to 31.3.2009 and outstanding as on 30.12.2013 and accordingly he deposited the required documents. But the OP No.1-Bank failed to deposit the interest upon subsidy amount of Rs.1,80,000/- against his loan account. It is further stated that although the complainant has paid Rs.2,76,295/- till 3.7.2015 @ Rs.6,500/- per month, the subsidy amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has not been accounted for in his loan account. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.53,452/- up to August, 2015 from OP No.1-Bank. But the OP No.1-Bank in his letter dated 6.8.2015 mentioned that payment has not been made since 1.6.2015 and a sum of Rs.14,285.91 paisa has become due in the account as monthly instalment.           On the other hand, OP No.1 & 2 stated that letter dated 22.3.2014 (Annexure-1) has been sent to the complainant for submission of income certificate for interest subsidy in education loan. In the said letter, it has been emphatically indicated that only interest outstanding as on dated 31.12.2013 will be subsidized as per Govt. of India guidelines. The interest outstanding as on dated 31.12.2013 was Rs.2,159/- which has been shown credited in the loan account on 2.2.2015 as Government subsidy. On perusal of Annexure-1, it came to light that the interest outstanding as on 31.12.2013 will be subsidized as per Government of India guidelines. Annexure-3, the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India, in Para-5 it has been clearly mentioned that the Scheme shall be applicable only in respect of Education Loan sanctioned / availed up to 31.3.2009 and which are outstanding as on 31.12.2013. The interest subsidy under the Scheme shall be available to the eligible students only once. From the above, it is held that the complainant has availed Education loan within the stipulated period as mentioned in Annexure-3 and the interest subsidy has already been calculated in the loan account of the complainant as on 2.2.2015, as shown vide Annexure-11. Annexure-8, the letter dated 6.8.2015 issued by OP No.1-Bank in favour of complainant, shows that OP No.1 has intimated the complainant  about failure to honour the commitment of making repayment as above since 1.6.2015 and a sum of Rs.14,285.91 paisa has become due in the account and present balance in the account was Rs.1,17,805/-. On perusal of Annexure-11, it is found to have been correct with regard to discontinuation of payment of instalments, amount due in the account and the balance in the account. In the said letter dated 6.8.2015, it has also been mentioned that please ignore this notice in case overdue amount as stated above stands deposited within the transit period. Therefore, it is held that loan account statement so also letter dated 6.8.2015 creates no bar in making payment of the outstanding instalments and thus, the complainant has no cause of action to file the case. Consequently, the case is also not maintainable. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is also not entitled to get any reliefs, what-so-ever, sought for in the complaint petition.

            Hence, it is ordered –

O   R   D   E   R

            The complaint of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on ex parte against OP No.4 and on contest against other Ops except OP No.3. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.

            Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 17^th day of October, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.