In The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Banka
Complaint Case No. 06 of 2017.
Dated: 1st day of March 2019.
Himansu Suman: ………………………………………………………………… Complainant.
V/s
Branch Manager
SBI Banka & Others: …………………………………………………………… Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Complainant:
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Present:
(1) Md. Naimullah
President
(2) Dr. Binay Kumar Singh
Member
(3) Dr. Neelam Kumari Neelu
Member
Judgment
This complainant has been filed against OP for decree of compensation as deficiency of service rendered by OP along with the mental injury & cost of the suit.
This case of complainant is that he has been borrowed an education loan for higher studies under welfare scheme of Govt. of India Deptt. Of human resource and development for the financial year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in four installments total of Rs. 3,71,000/- against loan A/c no. 30825451737 from Bank of India Banka Branch. On the said loan accrued interest is paid by the Govt. of India Deptt. Of HRD, as subsidy which has been released by Deptt. of Finance Govt. of India on demanded by the loanee Bank. As per the rule no interest is accumulated on education loan during study period. The interest will be calculated after completion of one year of study or after six months of getting the Job. The complainant after completion of study got a good Job in the month of January 2014. The father of complainant repaid loan as 80,000/- on 19.11.2013. After payment of said amount Rs. 2,91,000/- remained due to the complainant. But against the said amount the OP Banka has recovered Rs. 3,48,127/- from the complainant. Thus the OP has recovered Rs. 57,127 /- more than the due amount.
Thus the complainant has prayed to direct the OP Bank to return back the excess money recovered by Bank due to the deficiency of service of OP, service provide. After issuance of notice OP appeared and contested the case through his written statement dated 21.07.2017 praying therein to dismiss the case with cost.
The facts on which this case is opposed by OP are that the complaint is not maintainable and barred by law of limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The case is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary party. The interest calculated is on simple interest against the case of complainant that the calculation is based on compound interest since no income certificate was submitted by complainant hence the subsidy could not be claimed from Nodal Bank.
It is further admitted that the Govt. of India has approved a scheme to provide full interest subsidy during the period of moratorium i.e course period plus one year or six months after getting Job whichever is earlier. The interest subsidy shall be linked with the existing Educational loan scheme of IBA(Indian Bank Association). And hence directly transferable in the loan account. Bank has nothing to do in this regard. The education loan scheme is implemented through Canara Bank which is nodal bank for ministry of HRD. The modalities for implementation and monitoring shall be finalized in consultation with the canara bank and complainant was supposed to approach canara bank.
The further case of OP is that as and when the subsidy is released by the canara bank it has been credited in his loan A/c with…. Rs. 12,169/-, Rs. 8483/-, Rs. 16866/- and Rs. 12481/- on 10.02.2016, 04.08.2016, 02.09.2016 and 28.09.2016 respectively.
The OP through his letter dated 25.05.2016 has informed the complainant that the interest subsidy claimed by the Branch was Rs. 63008/-only which the 19.32% of subsidy claimed amounting to Rs. 12169 has been credited in his A/c No. on 10.02.2016 and receiving amount shall be credited to the account of complainant as and when it is released by the Govt. hence it is clear that there is no deficiency of service of the OP.
On the basis of pleading the only point of determination before us is whether the interest claiming from complainant for moratorium period instead of claiming with state is a deficiency of service on the part of OP?
Findings
To substantiate their respective case parties have examined oral witness and have adduced documentary evidence complainant has examined PW1 Himansu Suman the complainant. PW2 is Vijay Bhushan Singh.
The document adduced by complainant is Ext. 1 income certificate Ext. 2 is circular of India Dated 25.05.2010; Ext. 3 is circular of Education Loan Test Forum (ELTEF) the procedure to complainant against Banka.
Ext. 4 to 4/5are deposit slips, Ext. 5 is letter by complaint to OP Ext. 6 is letter written to public information officers dated 24.08.2015 Ext. 7 is a another letter to Public information officers Banka.
On the other hand the OP has examined DW1 Dusyant Birua Dy. Manager SBI Banka.
The document relied by OP are Ext. A against for term loan From SBI education loan scheme, Ext. B is scheme of accounts of complainant A/c No. 30825451737 Ext. C is statement showing claim of subsidy by OP Ext. D is same as Ext. 8 Ext. E is letter dated 01.11.2016 to complainant Ext. F is same as Ext. 3, Ext G is statement of account dated 11.12.2018.
Before dealing with the point of determination we would like to mention here the admitted facts in the case:-
(a) That the interest of moratorium period i.e. one year after completion of course education or six months from the obtaining of a jab whichever is earlier. The moratorium period ends on July i.e. six months after getting job which is joined by complainant on January 2014.
(b) During course period complainant/ loanee deposited Rs. 80,000/- i.e. 2, 91,000/- remain due on the date of end of moratorium period.
(c) After moratorium period complainant repaid loan amount to OP.
Repayment of loan can be explained from the chart given below:-
Sl. No. | Amount | Date | Remarks |
1 | 10,000 | 15.05.2015 | A/c Transfer |
2 | 70,000 | 18.05.2015 | By Cash |
3 | 8,100 | 11.06.2015 | A/c Transfer |
4 | 8,100 | 16.07.2015 | A/c Transfer |
5 | 20,000 | 28.08.2015 | A/c Transfer |
6 | 10,000 | 11.10.2015 | A/c Transfer |
7 | 8,000 | 23.12.2015 | A/c Transfer |
8 | 25,000 | 07.04.2016 | A/c Transfer |
9 | 10,000 | 26.04.2016 | A/c Transfer |
10 | 12,000 | 03.05.2016 | A/c Transfer |
11 | 12,000 | 02.06.2016 | A/c Transfer |
12 | 11,995 | 01.07.2016 | A/c Transfer |
13 | 12,000 | 01.08.2016 | A/c Transfer |
14 | 12,000 | 04.09.2016 | A/c Transfer |
15 | 11,986 | 04.10.2016 | A/c Transfer |
16 | 12,000 | 29.10.2016 | A/c Transfer |
17 | 45,000 | 13.11.2016 | By Cash |
18 | 25,000 | 22.11.2016 | By Cash |
19 | 24,985 | 21.12.2016 | A/c Transfer |
Total | 3,48,166 | - | - |
After perusal of the chart above it is evident that the complainant has paid Rs. 3,48,166/- from 15.05.2015 that is after moratorium period till 21.12.2016. The OP was entitled to recover the interest on remaining principal amount of Rs. 2,91,000/- at the rate of interest on the base rate of the bank. i.e @12.25% per annum. Ext. B file by OP and admitted by complainant shows that the bank has claimed interest from the date of payment of loan. Earlier there was dispute between the parties regarding claiming interest either it should be simple interest or compound interest. Thus issue is no more res integra in the view of the admitted fact that the interest for the moratorium period shall be borne by the state.
Whatever should be interest for the moratorium period that shall be borne by the state and then there is no liability of complainant to pay the interest. Now it also becomes redundant as to whether the subsidy was claimed by OP from nodal bank or not. Then the complainant is liable to pay the balance loan amount of Rs. 2,91,000/- along with interest to be accrued from August 2014. It is also a fact that after moratorium period complainant has repaid Rs. 3,48,166/- to the OP Bank till 21.12.2016. the Ext. B shows that OP has claimed Rs. 3,06,349/- as loan plus interest instead of Rs. 2,91,000/- on the date of end of moratorium period i.e excess demand of Rs. 15,349/- . Thus excess amount has risen up to Rs. 1,75,322/- as per page 15 of Ext. B. according to the OP. It is surprising that Rs. 15,349/- has raised up to the amount as Rs. 1,75,322/- this shows that still the OP has made a demand of interest of moratorium period which is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of OP
Thus on the basis of the discussion made above we come to the conclusion that the OP was entitled to recover balance loan amount of Rs. 2,91,000/-. On the end of moratorium i.e on August 2014 as the complainant got a job in the month of January 2014 and hence the moratorium period ends on July 2014. The complainant was under obligation to pay Rs. 2,91,000/- on August2014. And the OP bank was entitled to recover loan from complainant on Rs. 2,91,000/- along with the accrued interest from August 2014. As per chart complainant has paid loan of Rs. 3,48,166/- till 21.12.2016. If Rs. 3,48,166/- is more than the Principle amount of Rs. 2,91,000/- admissible interest by OP bank should be refunded back to complainant and of the said amount of Rs. 3,48,166/- is less than the principle amount of Rs. 2,91,000/- plus accrued interest then the complainant has to pay the due amount.
Thus we think proper to give parties to file their respective calculated statements regarding repayment and balance if any to be paid by complainant or to be refunded by OP as the case may be.
Fix 13.03.2019 for furnishing their respective bank statements so that the case may be finally disposed off on the basis of their respective Bank Statements.
Member Member President
Dr. Binay Kumar Singh Dr. Neelam Kumari Neelu Md. Naimullah
