Orissa

Cuttak

CC/91/2022

Dr Madan Mohan Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager,Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

P Lenka & associates

31 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

     C.C.No.91/2022

 

Dr. Madan Mohan Dutta,

S/O:Madhu Sudan Dutta,

C/O:Ananda Mohan Dutta,At:Bakhrabad,

Bhandari Sahi Gali,Dist:Cuttack-753002.                                ... Complainant.

 

                                                             Vrs.

The Chief Manager,Bank of India,

Cuttack Branch,At:NayaSarak,

P.O:Chandinichowk,Cuttack-753002.                                  ... Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:    Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                    Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

   Date of filing:     18.05.2022

Date of Order:    31.12.2022

 

For the complainant:           Mr. P.Lenka,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.             :     Mr. L.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had availed Star Education loan from the O.P for an amount of Rs.2,84,700/- on 26.1.2006 but the said loan was in favour of his father with a condition to repay the same amount in 84 number of E.M.Is @ Rs.8,430/- per month.  By virtue of the said loan, the complainant admitted himself to Govt Stanley Medical College at Chennai and has completed his course in the year 2012.  The repayment of the E.M.Is for the said education loan of the complainant started from the year 2013 as per the terms and conditions of the educational loan.  During the tenure of the said loan the Govt. of India in the Department of Human Resource Development had launched a new scheme styled as “Central Sector Scheme of Interest Subsidy Education Loan” which came into force with effect from 1.4.2009 in order to support students from economically weaker sections of the society.  By virtue of the said policy, the complainant was entitled to avail a subsidy which the O.P has not provided to the complainant.  A sum of Rs.2992/-was only granted to the complainant towards subsidy by the O.P on 12.11.13.  That apart, the O.P had charged compound interest even during the moratorium period to the complainant.  After repeated persuasions a sum of Rs.30,069/- was reversed into the account of the complainant on 15.6.15 for which the interest rate came down to less than 10%.  But the complainant was charged a flat rate of 14% from 2013 to 2019.  As per the complaint petition of the complainant, the O.P bank had reversed the excess interest rate of Rs.27,529/- on 3.7.2019.The complainant has further alleged that he had already repaid the loan and had paid more than twice the principal amount but the benefit of the Govt. of India scheme has not been extended to him.  The complainant has further stated that he was not asked for the income certificates of his father but the O.P bank in their response vide letter dt.7.3.2020 had mentioned about the income certificate of his parents in order to make him eligible to avail the subsidy as per the Govt. of India scheme.  The scheme thus envisages that the interest subsidy on the educational loan for the students will be applicable to those students whose parents earn less than Rs.4.5 lakh per annum.  To counter the said letter of the O.P Bank, the complainant has mentioned in his complaint petition, that while availing the loan from the O.P bank he had submitted the monthly income of his father to be of Rs.12,000/- by virtue of which the study loan was sanctioned in his favour.  Thus, the complainant has alleged through his complaint petition that due to the deficiency in service of the O.P bank,the complainant had sustained huge financial loss being deprived of getting the benefit of interest subsidy with effect from April,2009 to March,2013.  It is for this, on 2.11.21 the complainant had sent legal notice to the O.P bank.  Ultimately, when no result yielded, the complainant has come up with this case in order to get the benefit of interest subsidy on his study loan for the period effective from April,2009 to March,2013.  He has further claimed from the O.P a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his litigation expenses and has claimed interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount.  He has further prayed for any other relief as under law and equity.

In order to prove his case the complainant has filed copies of documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.         The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has prayed to reject the complaint petition it being not maintainable, the complaint petition being misjoinder of unnecessary party and barred by law of limitation.  The complainant is not entitled to get any subsidy for the year 2022 which is claimed after elapse of 11 years.  Thus, the O.P has prayed through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition since because the complainant had not produced any income proof of his parents in order to avail the subsidy benefit as claimed by him.

             The O.P together with his written version has filed copies of certain documents in order to establish his stand.

3.      Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issues no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

Admittedly, the complainant had availed a study loan from the O.P bank by virtue of which he had prosecuted his study at Govt. Stanley Medical College of Chennai and had completed his medical course on 2012.  As per the terms and conditions of the said educational loan he had started repaying the E.M.Is from the year 2013 onwards.  It is not in dispute that Govt. of India had introduced a new scheme for the economically weaker sections people towards their educational loan.  As per the said scheme, those students whose parents earn a sum less than that of Rs.4.5 lakh per year will be entitled to avail the said loan subsidy thereof.  Admittedly, the complainanthad not produced the annual income of his parents specifying it to be below Rs.4.5 lakh in order to avail the subsidy as per the new scheme of Govt. of India educational loan.  In this context, the complainant submits that while availing the Star Education Loan he had submitted the annual income of his parents to be of Rs.12,000/- per month wherefrom it is understood that the annual income of the complainant is not less than Rs.4.5 lakh per annum.  To the contrary, the O.P bank submits that the complainant had not produced such income certificate in order to enable him to avail the loan as intended by him.  The complainant has further mentioned that the O.P bank had never asked for the said annual income certificate of his parents earlier.  Be that as it may, when the complainant is intending to avail certain benefit in subsidy through introduction of a new scheme by Govt. of India, it is the duty of the complainant to mention the same in writing addressing to the O.P bank and furnishing therewith the requisite income certificates so as to enable him for consideration of the subsidy amount as envisaged in the new scheme.  Thus, by not furnishing the same, the simple contention of the complainant that while availing the previous loan he had submitted his annual parental income to be of Rs.12,000/- per month would not suffice.  Accordingly, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is thus not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

 

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 31^st day of December,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.   

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                  Member