IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/39/2019.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     11.03.19                                      19.03.19                             23.10.19

Complainant: Arindam Bhattacharjee,

                        S/o Jagannath Bhattacharjee

                        29/9 A, Kishan Ghosh Lane, PO&PS- Berhampore,

                        Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. Chief Manager, Berhampore Branch,

State Bank of India, PO&PS-Berhampore,

 Dist-Murshidabad,

 Pin-742101.

    2. Regional Manager, (Nodal Bank),

Canara Bank, 21, Bells House,

Camac Street,

Kolkata-700016

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant            : Sri. S.K. Sutradhar.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : None.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

  This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Arindam Bhattacharjee (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the  Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Berhampore Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

  The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The student complainant approached the OP Bank for educational loan and the same has been sanctioned by the OP on certain terms and conditions after proper verification. As per the terms of agreement interest shall be as per PBLR/BASC rate of individual bank. But the Complainant came to know that as per rule of Central Government in the scheme for Interest Subsidy on Educational loan and loanee is entitled for 100% interest exemption as the parental income is less than 4.5 lac per annum and the loan is disbursed after 01.04.2009. The student Complainant applied before the OP Bank for interest exemption along with all relevant documents. Thereafter a portion of subsidy amount was adjusted in the said loan account but major portion of subsidy amount was not adjusted. The petitioner repeatedly requested the OP to adjust the subsidy amount but yield no result. So, in order to avoid future complication the Complainant compelled to repay the loan amount with interest as charged by the OP Bank. In spite of repeated request, the OP Bank has not provided any clarification for non-exemption of interest upon the loan amount till the moratorium period i.e. till 31.12.16. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Ld. Forum for appropriate relief.

            After service of notice the OP did not turn up. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

Decision with reason

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.

On  going  through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of Complainant, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.

It is a fact that the Complainant applied for educational loan for his LL.B study at National Law Institute University, Bhopa,l M.P for the academic year 2009-2010 and the OP Bank sanctioned the same as per PBLR/BASC rate of interest. After knowing the 100% interest subsidy scheme of the Central Government the Complainant applied for the same with all relevant documents as the parental income of the Complainant was less than 4.5 Lakh per annum.

The Complainant stated that he is entitled to be exempted to pay any interest upon the loan amount till the moratorium period i.e. till 31.12.2016. On repeated request a portion of subsidy amount was adjusted in the loan account but the major portion of subsidy amount was not adjusted or refunded till today. Considering the future prospect the Complainant compelled to repay all dues of the loan amount with interest.

It is the nodal Bank who gets the subsidy amount from the Human Resource Development Department of the Government of India and disburses the same through the concerned Bank. The Nodal Bank i.e. Canara Bank is a necessary party but the Complainant has not made the nodal bank a party.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us and argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, we find that the complainant requested  the OP to  take steps for giving him 100% interest subsidy but the OP did not respond to  the request of the complainant.  It  cannot be inferred that the OP bank received subsidy but not credited in the loan account of the complainant. Therefore, we think that the OP has deficiency in service as it did not respond /reply to the request of the complainant. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as compensation from the OP for deficiency in service. The complainant has already liquidated the loan. The OP may be directed to pay the interest subsidy if already received from the Government of India through the Nodal Bank by 30 days from the date of this order.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 11.03.19 and admitted on 19.03.19. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the complaint case is succeeds.

                                                            ORDERED

that the Consumer Complaint No. CC/39/2019 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OP but without cost.

                        The OP be directed to pay the interest subsidy if already received from the Government of India through the Nodal Bank to the complainant by 30 days from the date of this order.

            The OP be directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for deficiency in service within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The OP is also directed to inform the complainant as to the amount of interest subsidy received from the Government of India through the Nodal Bank by 30 days from the date of this order.

          Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          Member

  Member                                                                                                   President.