REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.03.2012 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 145 of 2011. 2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner Mr Shyamal Shankare Bhattacharya approached the Canara Bank for extending education loan for his son Subhra Sankar Bhattacharya (another petitioner) who was a brilliant student. On such approach, at the instance of the petitioner, the respondent/ opposite party Canara Bank expressed its inability to extend education loan for Rs.8,50,000/- without mortgage of immovable properties or other similar collateral securities. The petitioner no. 1 had earlier enjoyed similar facilities to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for his elder son without executing any mortgage and accordingly disagreed to execute any such mortgage for his second son, i.e., Subhra Sankar Bhattacharya as asked for by the Bank. According to the petitioner, after series of discussions, etc., the Bank agreed to extend education loan to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- without execution of any mortgage and / or securities. According to the petitioner while extending such loan facilities, the Canara Bank without any rhyme or reasons and against the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India has charged margin money to the tune of Rs.36,000/- for such loan facilities. It was the case of the petitioners that as there was enhancement in the cost of education, the petitioners had to ask for further sanction of Rs.1,31,000/-. As the Bank unnecessarily put pressure upon the petitioners to execute mortgages and collateral securities in the matter of extending and/ or sanctioning the further claim of loan facilities by the petitioners, the petitioners had suffered mental agony and such uncalled action on the part of the Bank tantamounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for: * The District Forum may kindly determine whether Canara Bank has violated RBI and Government of India guidelines relating to priority leading schemes including Educational Loan and whether RBI has been able to play the due role as regulator of Indian Banking System for protecting the interest of credit worthy borrowers; * The Canara Bank, RBI and their designated officers have caused harm, damages and losses both financially, physically and mentally to the student borrower and his parents and therefore an appropriate compensation of at least Rs.10.00 lakh or more or as your honour may please consider appropriate be granted to the student borrower and his family; * Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of Finance, Government of India may please be directed to arrange immediate commencement of disbursement of the cost of the studies without prejudice from 5th Semester onwards for continuance of 3rd and 4th year of the academic course without any further delay; * The Hon’ble Court may determine the validly and legality of the agreements and/ or the documents that were signed by the student borrower and his parents blank and without the same being signed by the Bank official in our presence dated 12.07.2006 in relation to the existing Rs.4.00 lakh loan which has never been disbursed to the student borrower and also for not issuing sanction letter including terms and conditions of Rs.4.00 lakh loan; * Canara Bank and the individuals representing the Bank need to booked under appropriate law and they be directed to compensate additionally the student borrower and his parents for taking margin money and security for sanction of Rs.4.00 lakh which are against RBI guidelines and are considered serious violations; * Canara Bank, RBI and the designated officer of these Banks are liable for additional damages for causing purposeful inconvenience and harm to the study of the student borrower for not arrangement the laptop as per the sanction letter of Canara Bank dated 31.01.2008 that were essential for the student to continue his studies from 4th Semester onwards resulting in not achieving desired results that student borrower was aiming at; * Canara Bank needs to compensate the Guarantor/ co-owners of the property for encroaching into the site without her consent and/ or the other co-owners and talking to the trespassers without being authorised to do so in violation of the code of conduct and law as Canara Bank’s encroaching into the Guarantor’s property unlawfully has generated fresh litigations casing immense loses, harm and damages to the interest of the guarantor and her family and other co-owners of the said property; * Reserve Bank of India and its designated officers both and Kolkata and Mumbai need to compensate the student and his parents additionally for failing to perform its responsibility, for conniving with the vested interests within and outside the Bank and for its dismal failure to stand against the corrupt practices of Canara Bank as regulator of the Indian Banking system for protecting the common citizens of the country and/ or borrowers of the priority lending schemes in particular of GOI and RBI. * The virtual refusal on the part of the opposite parties to release sanctioned educational loan in the midway of the studies attracts Section 2 (1) (g) of the CPA 1986 (since amended) under the title deficiency of service and also their declining of disbursement of sanctioned loans and creating continuous troubles and harassment prior to payments tantamount to unfair trade practices under section 2 (1) (r ) ibid; * Any other relief including all costs both legal and otherwise that your honour may consider appropriate for ends of justice only; and * Ra.1,000/- only as cost of litigation. 3. The respondent Bank contested the case by filing written reply thereby denying all the material averments made in the complaint contending inter alia that there was no merit in the petition of complaint which has been filed on false and fictitious grounds. The petitioner though initially agreed to execute mortgages and/ collateral securities for the purpose of granting loan beyond Rs.4,00,000/- but subsequently in spite of repeated requests at the instance of the respondent Bank also and the written request put forward on behalf of Reserve Bank of India, the petitioners were reluctant to abide by such instructions, due to which it was not possible for the Bank to extend the loan facilities which was beyond Rs.4,00,000/-. There was no laches and/ or deficiency in service at the instance of the respondent – Bank. The petitioner has filed this present complaint on all false and fictitious grounds and the same are liable to be dismissed with cost. 4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit I, Kolkata (“the District Forum’) vide its order dated 09.02.2011 while allowing the complaint gave the following order: “The petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against all the OPs but with costs against OP no. 1 to 4 only. OPs 1 to 4 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- only and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- only to the complainant positively within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% per annum till full realisation”. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners/ opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal observed as under: “We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Respondent and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgment and find that in this case the Complainant/Respondent has put forward a case to the effect that in pursuance to an effort to have education loan facilities from the OP/Canara Bank it was agreed between the parties that the Bank would extend the education loan facilities to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- without execution of any mortgage and/or collateral securities, but as subsequently it became extremely necessary to have some more money in order to pursue the education by the son of the Respondent, the same was asked for by the Respondent from the OP/Bank, which the OP/Bank refused to extend without execution of mortgage and/or collateral securities, which, according to the Respondent, was completely against the norms and rules in case of a brilliant student like that of his son, and hence, the petition of complaint. The OP/Bank, on the other hand, has put forward a case to the effect that whatever action the Bank has taken was as per guidelines and norms of Reserve Bank of India and that the complainants having refused to execute any sort of proper mortgage in respect of immovable properties and as there was no collateral securities, there was no alternative left before the OP/Bank but to stop extending the extended loan facilities to the Respondent. The petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds the same should be set aside. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and find that the Ld. District Forum has held the Bank to be deficient in service as it has not extended the loan facilities without execution of mortgages in respect of the immovable properties and/or collateral securities by the wife of the Complainant/Respondent. In this regard, we find that the Ld. District Forum has very much relied upon the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and also the regulations of Government of India. But we find that in this matter the letter written by the Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India to the Complainant/Respondent along with a letter written to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance by the General Manager, Canara Bank, are very much relevant. In this regard, we also find much substance in the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant/Bank to the effect that even Reserve Bank of India sent a humble letter to the Complainant/Respondent with a request to comply with the requirements so as to enable the Bank to release the loan amount against collateral securities/guarantees to the satisfaction of the Bank. From the materials on record we find that the Bank was trying to settle the matter in accordance with Reserve Bank of India guidelines, which are very much evident from the letter of request of Reserve Bank of India and also the letter written to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance by the OP/Bank and if that be the position, we cannot hold that the Bank was deficient in service leaving aside the allegation of collusion in between Reserve Bank of India authorities and the OP Bank in the matter of extending education loan to the Respondent/Complainant for the purpose of pursuing the studies of his son. In this regard, we are not unmindful of the legal proposition that Consumer Protection Act has been enacted for the purpose of giving protection to the Consumers at large, but in the instant case we find that there was lack of patience at the instance of the complainants in the matter of obtaining the loan facilities from the OP/Bank and the OP Bank has simply tried to follow the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, which, in our opinion, cannot be termed as deficiency in service. In this regard, we are also constrained to hold that imposing of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- upon the Ops at the instance of the Ld. District Forum has got no basis at all. We are unable to fathom the yardstick which prompted the Ld. District Forum to fix such a staggering amount of compensation. Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussions we find much merit in the present Appeal which should be allowed. In the result, the Appeal succeeds. Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands allowed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgment stands set aside. Consequently, the petition of complaint stands dismissed”. 6. Hence the present revision Petition. 7. I have heard the petitioner in person as also the counsels for the petitioner no. 2 and the respondent and have carefully gone through the record. 8. The petitioner as also the counsel for the petitioner no. 2 have contended that the State Commission had failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 1 had illegally and unlawfully refused to disburse the already sanctioned loan amounting to Rs.4.00 lakh towards the cost of studies for petitioner no. 2 for the 5th Semester of B Tech Course which he was pursuing. It was further contended that the State Commission had failed to appreciate that the Bank had ultimately increased the loan amount to Rs.5.31,000/-. However, they continued to harass and pressurizing tactics and impose illegal and illegitimate terms and conditions for sanctioning the loan and when the petitioner no. 1 refused to succumb to the pressure the Bank illegally stopped disbursing the educational loan from the mid-term to the petitioner no.2. The respondent had also committed unfair trade practice by compelling the petitioner to surrender the scholarship amount of Rs.36,000/- towards the Bank loan. 9. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that they had been strictly working as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. It was also admitted that the petitioner was earlier sanctioned loan of Rs.4.00 lakh, however, vide letter dated 14.06.2006 the petitioner had stated that for a loan upto Rs.4.00 lakh no margin and collateral security are required as per the RBI guidelines. However, later when the petitioner asked for enhancement of the loan, the same was agreed to and the loan amount was increased to Rs.5,31,000/- as per the RBI guidelines. It was on the condition that the petitioner would give personal security of Smt Saswati Bhattacharya as also margin of 5%. It was also clarified that the disbursement was subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and the rate of interest were also clarified. The other conditions read as under: “(i) Copy of progress report to be submitted semester wise for our records; (ii) Any scholarship secured from the institute to be deposited in the loan account or same may be adjusted accordingly while making payment of fees to the institute; (iii) Original money receipts of fees and original bill for computer/ laptop to be submitted to us; iv) Mutation certificate and municipal tax paid receipt in the name of Smt Saswati Bhattacharya (Guarantor) in respect of at least one properties mentioned in NF 589 to be submitted within one year from the date of this sanction.” 10. The petitioner was requested to return the copy of the sanction letter by accepting the terms and conditions of the sanction as also clause. The office of the respondent executed the necessary documents according to his convenience. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner failed to give necessary documents but on the other hand resorted to making complaints to various authorities. He drew my attention to the letter of RBI which is addressed to the petitioner wherein the RBI has stated that the petitioner was advised that as a borrower he has to complete the prescribed legal process with regard to collateral securities/ guarantees to the satisfaction of the bank. As such the requirements sought by the Bank were found to be reasonable. He was requested to comply with the requirements to enable the Bank to release the loan amount. The petitioner ignored this advice and filed a complaint before the District Forum. 11. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner reduced his requirement to Rs.4.00 lakh so that he did not have to execute any mortgage or give any collateral security. Subsequently when it was necessary to seek additional funds, the Bank sanctioned the amount with the conditions as mentioned earlier but the petitioner balked at fulfilling the terms and conditions of the sanction and started leveling allegations against the Canara Bank to multifarious authorities. The bank had imposed the terms and conditions as per the guidelines of the RBI which were uniformly being followed by other Banks also. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had also given their approval to the additional loan scheme with the following conditions: “(i) The condition of minimum qualifying marks in the last examination may be dropped; (ii) No margin may be insisted upon for loans up to Rs.4.00 lakh. However, for loans of higher amounts, the margin requirement may be 5% for inland studies and 15% for studies abroad. iii) No security may be insisted upon for loans upto Rs.4.00 lakh. However, for loans about this amount, collateral security of suitable value or co-obligation of parents/ guardians/ third part along with the assignment of future income of the student for payment of installment may be obtained. iv) Loans up to Rs.4.00 lakh may be advanced at interest rate not exceeding PLR of the Bank. Above Rs.4.00lakh the interest rate may be PLR Plus 1%”. 12. The bank repeatedly wrote to the petitioner to fulfill the terms and conditions of the sanction letter for the enhancement of the amount. He was requested again to execute the loan document in terms of the sanction letters. He however, failed to do the same and persisted in making serious allegations of fraud and connivance against the officials of the Bank. Hence, the Canara Bank sent a letter dated 05.07.2008 to the petitioner stating as under: “MSCR : EL 06/2006 : 246 : 2008 dated 05.07.2008 Dear Sir, Subject: Your education loan with us. Reference : Your letter dated 12.03.2008 and 24.04.2008 We are in receipt of a copy of your letter dated 15.04.2008 addressed to the Governor Reserve Bank of India from Assistant Manager, Customer Service Department, RBI Mumbai. We have long back amply clarified all the said matters vide our letter dated 19.02.2008, 26.02.2008, 03.03.2008, 15.03.2008. Once you have disputed with some terms and conditions/ clauses of the sanction, question of documentation for additional sanction and disbursement of loan does not arise. Further, in respect of original education loan of Rs.4.00 lakh you have made false allegation vide your letter dated 27.02.2008 and 12.03.2008 against the Bank that your signature was obtained on blank stamp paper. If you continue with your said false allegation we will have no other alternative but to cancel all the sanctions and recall the advance and initiate recovery measures at your risk and responsibility.” Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Chief Manager)” 13. The entire matter was also explained in detail by the Canara Bank to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Service (Banking Division) vide letter dated 09.07.2008 which is self-explanatory and is reproduced as under: “The Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services (Banking Division) Jeevan Deep, Parliament Street New Delhi – 110 001 Kind attention : Shri Suresh C Arya, Sr Research Officer (CM) Dear Sir, Subject : Representation received from Shyamal S Bhattacharya, C/o Think-Tank Consultants (P) Ltd.,, 227 A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata. Reference : F no. 22 (69)/2008 – CM dated 26.06.2008 Our letter no. SCRT FB VIP 40 2008.09 SP 882 dated 02.07.2008. The applicant has requested for an additional education loan of Rs.1,90,000/- for his son from our Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata Branch. Earlier he had availed an educational loan of Rs.4.00 lakh jointly with his son for B E Course. As per the extant norms of education loans for amount exceeding Rs.4.00 lakh, a suitable guarantor has to be provided. Our Branch has sought the applicant to bring a suitable guarantor for sanctioning additional education loan as the total loan amount would exceed Rs.4.00 lakh and the total amount would be Rs.5,31,000/-. Shri Syamal S Bhattacharya has offered the guarantee of Smt Saswati Bhattacharya his wife and she has declared certain immovable assets in the documents. The Branch has sanctioned an additional education loan of Rs.1,31,000/- to the applicant on 31.01.2008. Branch has also conveyed the sanction to the applicant stipulating certain conditions which include submission of Municipal Tax paid receipt and mutation certificate for the usual properties of guarantor Smt Saswati Bhattacharya mentioned in loan documents. Till date he has not provided the required documents of guarantor to the branch instead he is making a stream of representations to our office and Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata. Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata has replied to the applicant on 01.04.2008 stating that the requirements sought by the Bank were found to be reasonable. A copy of RBI’s letter is enclosed. Again he has represented to us to remove certain clauses from the sanction letter conveyed by the Branch. One of them is the protective clause of the Bank, while communicating the sanctions to be borrowers. The other one reported by the applicants is the usage of the word “on humanitarian ground” in the sanction letter. The word was specifically used by the branch because as per the provisions of the Bank’s lending norms, a guarantee cannot be accepted unless creditworthiness is proved along with proper supportive documents. But in this case, the documents are not provided by the guarantor and the applicant pleaded for an year’s time to provide documents. The branch under the humanitarian ground, to facilitate the continuation of the education of the student, had considered the sanction of the additional loan and had also offered the option of immediate disbursement. But Mr Bhattacharya had misinterpreted the sanction condition. Further, the branch has also observed through spot verification that the ownership and possession of the property declared by the guarantor were under dispute. Branch has informed the applicant suitably in this regard. We, therefore, request you to treat the matter is closed. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Chairman and Managing Director N Narasa Reddy General Manager” 14. In view of the discussion above, I find no reason to disagree with the detailed and well-reasoned order of the State Commission. The petitioners have failed to give any evidence to support their allegations against the Bank and persisted with the allegations and complaints in spite of being assured by the RBI that the Bank was acting as per the approved guidelines of the Government and the RBI which they were bound to follow to safeguard public money and public interest. 15. Hence, I find no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts has been shown to us which calls for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. | 
