THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No. 21/2009 Saturday, the 27th day of February, 2010.
Petitioner : 1. J. John, Kalariparambil Aimanam, Kottayam.
Bobin J. John,
-do— (By Adv. T.R Sathian) Vs. Opposite party : State Bank of Travancore, Aimanam Branch, Kottayam Reptd. By its Branch Manager.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows: First complainant is the father of the second petitioner. The second petitioner was B.Sc Nursing Student and had completed the course. The complainant approached the opposite party for getting an educational loan. Then the Branch Manager insisted production of title deed to avail the loan, though the guidelines mandates the sanctioning of educational loan without securing any security. The first D/D to the college was sent to the college only after 3 months from the date of commencement of the first year course. Though the entire fees to the course is to be allotted to the complainants to the opposite party sanctioned only two lakhs and sixteen thousand rupees. The entire course fees is Rs. 3 lakhs. Complainants approached opposite party for getting the balance amount and despite repeated requests and demands the opposite party declined the same. -2- An outstanding amount of Rs. 84,000/- was paid by the petitioners by raising it on fearing rate of interest. The fourth year exam was written by the second petitioner by getting special permission from the Chairman with an undertaking that he will collect the certificate only after payment of Rs. 84,000/-. The petitioner approached the opposite party for getting an educational loan but they deceived the complainant by sanctioning MTL instead of educational loan. Hence the complainants filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite party to convert the MTL in to an educational loan and to schedule the interest accordingly, to disburse the entire fee of the fourth year study and the balance fees of third year, to adjust the repaid amounts to the converted educational loan by converting MTL to educational loan and to allow Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. The petition is not maintainable either in law on or facts. The petition is barred by limitation. Petitioners applied for loan on 1..9..2003 and the loan was sanctioned on 30..9..2003. The sanction advice was accepted by the petitioner. If there is a genuine cause of action or grievance, the petition would have been filed on or before 30..9..2005. The details of the petitioners are filled by the petitioner in the loan application form. They have not given any blank forms to the bank. The opposite party has given a D.D as first installment of fee as per the request of the petitioners within time. Petitioners are entitled to get only Rs. 2,04,800/- as per the details of fees structure submitted by the Nursing College. Petitioners are not entitled to get transportation fees, food and accommodation fees, electricity and water charges. Even then considering the request of petitioners the bank granted Rs. 11,200/- in addition to the eligible amount as hostel fees. This
-3- fact was accepted by the petitioners and they signed the sanction advice. Petitioner is not entitled to get any more amount than that of the sanctioned amount. The opposite party has not cheated as stated in the petition. Opposite party has granted education loan under the scheme. Gyan Jyothi loan for education and not any medium term loan as stated by the petitioner. This education loan is under the classification of MTL. This is not a diversion form specified loan to another category. MTL is a common classification. The bank has charged the interest only as per the sanction advice and the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner has completed course in 2007 and so far not paid any amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. There is no cause of action for filing this petition.
Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the petition with costs to them. Points for considerations are: Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? Relief and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Exts. A1 to A4. Even though the opposite party in their affidavit averred that four documents are produced, they are not seen on record and therefore not marked. Point No. 1 Heard the counsel for both sides and perused the documents. The original loan sanction advice is produced and marked as Ext. A1. As per Ext. A1 Dtd: 30th September 2003, the loan amount sanctioned is Rs. 2,16,000/- and the nature of limit is medium term loan. This sanction advice is signed by both the petitioners. No protest or objection with regard to the loan amount or nature of limit is found on Ext. A1. So the inference that can be drawn from Ext. A1 is that the terms and conditions contained in the loan sanction -4- advice issued on 30th September 2003 were agreed by both petitioners. The petitioners have no case that they have not received the sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 2,16,000/- The petition before the forum is filed on 22nd December 2008. If there was a dissatisfaction with regard to the loan amount or nature of limit, the petitioners would have recorded their protest on the loan sanction advice or would have filed an objection before the loan sanctioning authority or would have filed a complaint before this forum within two years of receipt of the said loan sanction advice . In our view this belated petition itself is to evade from the repayment of the received loan amount. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1 this petition is ordered as follows: The petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation ordered. Both parties will bear their costs. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Sri. K.. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents of the Petitioner: Ext. A1: Original loan sanction advice. Ext. A2: The original letter issued by the Nursing College to the bank Ext. A3: Original letter issued by opposite party to the petitioner Ext. A4: The original letter issued by the Nursing College Dtd: 1..12..2008 Documents of the Opposite party Nil. By Order,
Senior Superintendent Despatched on / Received on amp/ 4 cs.
| HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | |