IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 31st day of October, 2011
Filed on 17.03.2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 90/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Miss. Veneethakumari The Branch Manager
D/o Baby, Chalummattuthara Dhanalakshmi Bank
Punnakkunnam P.O., Pin – 688 504 Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Miss.Vineethakumari has filed this complaint before the Forum on 17.3.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the side of opposite party – Manager, Dhanalakshmi Bank. Her allegations are as follows:- She is a student of nursing and belongs to the scheduled caste community. She had jointed the Nursing School by name M/s. Narayana Nursing School, Nelloor in Andrapradesh in the year July 2010. She had joined the said school only on the assurance of the opposite party to give educational loan for her studies. As such, she had filed the application for the educational loan and entrusted the title deeds of 4 cents of property before the opposite party. But the opposite party had intimated that she is not eligible to get the loan from them. In order to write the exam. of April, she has to get the loan amount from the opposite party, otherwise she could not continue the course. Since there was no positive
steps to get the education loan from the opposite party, she has filed the complaint, seeking a direction to the opposite party to get the education loan of Rs.1,20,000/-.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance before the Forum and filed version.
3. In the version, it is stated that the complaint is a frivolous one and is to be dismissed with their costs. It is submitted that there is no consumer relationship between them and that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (d) of the C.P. Act, and stated that the complainant had submitted the application of the educational loan and they have processed the application strictly as per the norms of the IBA’s education loan. It is stated that as per the loan of the above scheme, and it was the scheme for given educational loan to meritorious students for higher education in India and abroad. It is stated that the complainant secured admission through management quota, which does not fall under the norms for education loan Scheme of IBA, and that the marks secured by the complainant in earlier examination are not above average. So her application was closed. It is stated that the opposite party have acted only as per norms and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the education loan from the opposite
party?
3) Regarding the compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- The complainant had produced authorization letter vide dt. 21.3.2001 to her father Sri. C.C. Baby to conduct the case before the Forum. As such Sri. C.C. Baby has filed proof affidavit with one document, and he has been cross examined by the opposite party. Document of the complainant – Ext. A1 marked – Ext.A1 is the authorization letter of the complainant, authorizing her father to file documents and to give evidence before the Forum for the case.
5. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit in support of their case and produced only one document – Ext.B1 marked – Ext.B1 is the details of the scheme and guideline of the educational loan.
6. We have fully examined the details of this case and perused the documents, submitted by both sides in evidence. The allegations of the complainant is that she had submitted the application before the opposite party for the educational loan on the basis of the assurance of the opposite party for sanctioning the loan. On the assurance of the opposite party, the complainant had joined the institution at Andra Pradesh for Nursing. As such the complainant submitted the application before the opposite party together with the title deed of 4 cents of land belongs to the complainant’s family as security. It is alleged that the opposite party has not sanctioned the loan amount. After a long period, when contacted the opposite party; it was learnt that her application was rejected. After perusal of the matters, it can be seen that the opposite party has accepted the application for educational loan from the complainant along with the document of the security having an extent of 4 cents along with the residential building thereon. But the opposite party has retained the application for several months with them, without taking any sincere effort to sanction the loan. On the basis of the assurance of the opposite party, the complainant had joined the institution, for studying the Nursing course. In the version of the opposite party, it is stated that the loan will be sanctioned to the applicants who have meritorious students and further stated that the application of the complainant was rejected due to the reason that the complainant got the admission through management quota. These contentions of the opposite party cannot be accepted. The complainant had obtained the admission in the said institution since she was eligible for admission of that course. So the question of meritorious student will not arise in this case. The contention of the opposite party regarding the nature of the management of the said institution cannot be accepted since the opposite party has no contention regarding the recognition. The complainant is eligible to study in that institution. The opposite party has produced the guide lines of the sanction of the education loan (Ext.B1). It shows that up to the loan of Rs.4 lakhs, no security is required to sanction the education loan. But, from the complainant the opposite party has collected the title deed of 4 cents of land, together with the residential building thereon, as security. It is contrary to the guide lines, issued by the RBI and the Govt. of India and other superior authority in connection with the education loan. On a perusal of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that the action taken by the opposite party are highly illegal and arbitrary. Even though the complainant offered sureties of her father and mother to the said loan, the opposite party has not taken any earnest steps to release the education loan in time, after taking necessary agreements with the complainant and the parents of the complainant as co-obligants. It is to be further noticed that the opposite party has retain the file without taking any action for several months. In order to remit the first installment in the said institution, the complainant contacted the opposite party for getting the loan. But she has not obtained the loan. As per the Ext.B1, it can be seen that the opposite party has to dispose of the education loan application within a period of 15 days or in one month. But in this case, the opposite party had retained the application for several months, without taking any action for sanction, even though the application is a genuine one. The opposite party not entitled to retain the application indefinitely without taking any steps to sanction the amount. The opposite party’ s demand to give additional collateral security for the loan amount required for the complainant, is highly unauthorized and is against the guide lines issued by the superior authorities. So the contention raised by the opposite party in the version cannot be accepted, since it lacks bona fides. On verification of the entire facts of this case, we are of the view that there is culpable negligence and grossest deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party by way of retaining the application without taking any sincere effort to sanction the loan in time, and it was urgent. The whole facts show that the opposite party has unnecessarily drag on the complainant before the Forum for seeking a relief. It further shows that there was dereliction of duty on the side of the opposite party. There is no justification on the side of the opposite party to cancel the loan application of the complainant by raising unsustainable contentions. The whole action of the opposite party comes within the purview of arbitrary and unauthorized nature and violation of guide lines for the education loan issued by the higher authorities. So, we are of the view that the contentions raised by the opposite party has no bone fides and it cannot be accepted since it has no merit. The allegations raised by the complaint is to be treated as genuine and it is to be allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that since there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite party. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby directing the opposite party to sanction the education loan of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand only) to the complainant as per her application filed before the opposite party without insisting the collateral security to the said education loan and without any delay and release the first installment to the complainant, in order to continue her studies in the said institution and further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for her mental agony, pain, sufferings, physical strain, inconvenience and loss due to the willful default to sanction her education loan in time by the opposite party by way of grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on their side and further pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite party to comply with this order within 25 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Baby (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Authorization of the complainant
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the details of the scheme and guidelines of the
Education loan.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by :-pr/-
Compared by:-
