DATE OF FILING: 19.11.2015
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.03.2018.
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainants Tithirupa Sahu and Raghunath Sahu have filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of their grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the complainant No.1 is a customer of O.P.No.1 having the saving bank pass book account No. 31048974490 and also a borrower after availing the education loan of Rs.2,83,500/- with effect from 15.03.2010. The complainant No.2 is the guarantor of the Educational loan of Rs.2,83,500/- availed by the complainant No.1 on 13.05.2010. The complainant No.1 was the student of G.I.E.T. Gunupur, Dist: Rayagada, during the year 2009-10 to 2012-13 and completed the technical course in B.Tech (EEE) successfully. She belongs to Economic Weaker Section (EWS) since depends on the salar4y of her father guarantor-complainant No.2 on Rs.3,36,560/- per annum i.e. below Rs.4.50 lakhs. The complainant submitted the income certificate dated 22.02.2011 in M.C.No. 1087/2011 of the Tahasildar, Kabisuryanagar to the O.P.No.1 on 23.02.2011 to avail the interest subsidy during the year moratorium period on the education loan under the educational loan scheme. The O.P.No.1 in their Notice No. 2014-15 dated 12.12.2014 issued the statement of account from 06.02.2010 to 30.12.2014 showing the calculation of 14.25% of interest per annum but charged the 14.25% compoundable interest on each and every month which shows their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant No.2 in their Regd. Letter dated 19.01.2015 intimated to the O.P.No.1 to extend the benefit of interest subsidy on educational loan during the moratorium period since the annual income of the parent belongs to Rs.3,36,560/- per annum i.e. under the limitation of Rs.4.50 lakh. But the O.P.No.1 ignored the Regd. Letter dated 19.01.2015 of the complainant No.2 without any reply by the O.Ps. The O.P.No.1 taken steps to charge the interest @14.25% per month with compoundable calculation, instead of 14.25% per annum causing the complainant No.1 & 2 to face financial loss in clearing the loan causing the interests to became double than the loan amount. The complainant No.1 & 2 willing to clear the educational loan availed from the O.P.No.1 & 2 subject to enjoy the benefits viz. interest subsidy during moratorium period and interest @14.25% per annum which extended by the Central Government to the Economically Weaker Section technical students under a scheme. But the O.P.No.1 & 2 not co-operating with the education loan scheme and wants to exploit the complainants illegally and arbitrarily. Alleging deficiency in service on the parts of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the following relief:
(i) The O.P.No.1 be directed to place before the Hon’ble Forum the statement of accounts of the educational loan granted in favour of the complainants for detail information of all.
(ii) The O.P.No.1 and 2 be directed to calculate the interest @14.25% per annum, instead of the calculation of month wise compoundable interest.
(iii) The O.P.No.1 & 2 be directed to extend the scheme facility of interest subsidy on the educational loan during the moratorium period from May 2010 to June 2014 basing on the economically weaker section status of the complainants.
(iv) The O.P.No.1 & 2 be directed to set the borrower and the guarantor free from the liability to clear the education loan early without further harassment.
(v) The complainants may please be compensated to the tune of Rs.20,000/- only for harassment and mental agony cause by the O.P.No. 1& 2.
3. Upon notice the O.Ps filed version through his advocate. It is stated the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of such allegations. The complainant No.1 and 2 borrower and co-borrower applied for an education loan on 28.01.2010 for Rs.2,91,069/- as term loan which was sanctioned on 06.02.2010. Out of the said sanctioned amount a sum of Rs.97,000/- was disbursed on 13.05.2010, Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.07.2010, Rs.50,000/- on 29.08.2011 and lastly Rs.36,500/- on 03.07.2012, the sum total is Rs.2,83,500/- was availed by the complainants for the education expenses of complainant No.1. In consideration of the aforesaid loan the complainants have executed necessary security documents agreeing to pay the loan the complainants have executed necessary security documents agreeing to pay the loan with floating rate of interest @0.5% below SBAR minimum 11.75% and the effective rate was 11.25. The same rate of interest is changing periodically as per the directions of the RBI and at present the same is at 13.55% with floating rate of interest @0.5% below SBAR minimum 11.75% and the effective rate was 11.25. The same rate of interest is changing periodically as per the directions of the RBI and at present the same is at 13.55%. As per the agreement with the O.P.Bank the complainants are to repay the loan dues with interest accrued there on monthly. The loan was sanctioned subject to interest subsidy during the study period is not true. As a matter of fact the Central Government introduced a scheme providing interest subsidy on education loans during the moratorium period for technical and professional courses for students from economically weaker section (EWS) with annual gross parental/family income up to Rs.4.50 lakhs per annum from the academic year 2009-2010. On introduction of the scheme by the Government, the O.P.Bank intimated the complainant in writing to claim the same in the prescribed format with proof of income from the competent authority. But although the complainant had received the intimation of the O.P.Bank in time, have never chosen to apply the same to the Bank with the legal heir certificates with prescribed format. Since the complainant No.1 has never submitted the required claim form with income certificate in the prescribed proforma, her loan account was not considered for recommending to the higher authorities for availing interest subsidy. As a matter of fact on 23.11.2014 when the loan was declared N.P.A. the complainants have deposited an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- on different dates towards their loan account bearing No. 31048974490. After such repayment there is now due and outstanding an amount of Rs.1,90,895/- in the loan account of the complainants which they have to repay to the O.P.Bank. There on larches on the part of the complainants to claim of interest subsidy as per norms in due time and they have come with this complaint with totally false allegations in order to avail the subsidy at a belated stage. The petition is barred by limitation and the same has not been properly valued. The complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder necessary parties i.e. the Govt. of India and the Canara Bank and there is no cause of action for filing the complaint. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of final hearing of the consumer complaint, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for the O.Ps. We have also gone through the complaint petition, written version, written argument and also verified the materials placed on the case record. The Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held in case of Omega Packaging Pvt. Ltd versus Central Bank of India and other reported in 1995 (1) CPR 247 that “Where complaint alleging excess interest charges by Bank on transaction involved a number of entries requiring evidence of numerous transactions, there can not be a satisfactory adjudication of issues in time bound proceeding under C.P. Act and complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court”.
5. Considering the factual position of the case, we dismissed the complaint of the complainant due to devoid of any merits with a direction to the complainant to file such complaint before any other competent jurisdiction for adjudication of her disputes and she may avail the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 in the best interest of justice.
The order is pronounced on this day of 24th March 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
