Kerala

Idukki

CC/115/2020

Remya P G - Complainant(s)

Versus

District co- operative bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: Robin

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 9.9.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of April, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.115/2020

Between

Complainant : Remya P.G. D/o. Gopi,

Paradickal House,

Thopramkudy P.O.,

School City, Vathikudy, Idukki.

(By Adv: Robin Manual)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

IDCB Bank Ltd.,

Murickassery Branch,

Now turned as

State Co-operative Bank,

Muickassery Branch.

2. The Chief Executive Officer,

Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

PB No.6515, COBANK Towers,

Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram,

Pin : 695 033.

(Both by Adv: C.K. Babu)

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

1. This complaint is filed raising the following allegations against opposite parties. The complainant had taken an education loan from the opposite party for 4 years to pursue a BSc Nursing Course. Complainant then completed the course at an accredited institution. The loan is passed by the opposite party on the basis of loan EMI payment from the time of completion of the course onwards. After completing the course, (cont...2)

- 2 -

the complainant applied for a job in several institutions, but got a job with a very low salary. The salary received could only be used for daily expenses and hostel fees. Complainant then sought job in several other hospital institutions. She attended PSC examinations and came in rank list also, but till not posted. Complainant got married in 2009 and became pregnant. The doctor prescribed complete bed rest as she had some physical problems during pregnancy. Therefore, the complainant could not go to work. The complainant was unable to go to work as she had to take care of the child after the child was born and her father had passed away before months, father had treated long time as cancer patient. Huge amount was spent for his treatment.

 

2. On 16.5.2017, Kerala Government has launched a scheme (Education Loan Repayment Scheme- ELRS) for providing government support to those who find it extremely difficult to repay the educational loan debts after the completion of their course, was announced in the Budget 2016-17 and 2017-18, such a scheme envisages Government support to those who availed of education loan. Its moratorium period was fixed as four years of course period plus one year or six months or whichever is shorter as student got a job. Under this scheme, education loans sanctioned to students are classified into two categories namely (i) Education Loan Non-NPA/standard account and (ii) Education loan turned to NPA account on or before 31^st March, 2016. Annual repayment amount (Principal plus Interest) will be shared between the Government and the borrower in the specified ratio during the 4 years relief period for the first category. In the case of second category, government will assist the borrower to settle and close the loan account by paying specified amount as per eligibility. The complainant approached the Bank on the basis of this Government order to support those who find it extremely difficult to repay the educational loan debts after the completion of their course. Complainant submitted an online application, copy of which is produced here as document No.1, on the basis of instructions of the bank Manager. After that a message was received by the complainant from the opposite party bank, it was acknowledging that the application is considered. The amount was fixed by the bank as per the instruction from Government of Kerala G.O.(P) No.65/Fin dated 16.5.2017. Copy of the same is produced here as document No.2. Opposite party informed that complainant has to remit an amount of Rs.75596.2/-. Opposite party sanctioned and dispersed an amount of two lakhs seventy thousand rupees. Bank deducted all remittance of complainant from the actual loan amount and fixed the repayment amount as 75596.2. The said amount has to remit at the date of 3.8.2018. Copy of the message is produced here as document No.3. On that time, complainant approached opposite party with that amount, but opposite party wanted to wait some time for repaying this because of that a sanctioned amount is to be reached in the account of the bank. Thus as per that complainant waiting before the last (cont...3)

- 3 -

two weeks. Now the opposite party bank changed its name as Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Branch Murickassery. The opposite party authorities informed that the full amount with interest and penal interest to be repaid by the complainant or her sureties or else the co-obligant, more over opposite parties informed that they will recover soon. But the manager actually said that this Government Scheme would be available in subsequent years and therefore the manager suggested not to pay amount in a hurry. In March 2020, the complainant contacted the bank manager and said she was ready to pay the amount. The Bank Manager said not to come to the bank now as the corona is spreading. On two weeks before opposite party came at the home of parents unexpectedly. He threatened to confiscate the house in which the parents dwells they threaten them that bank will recover soon with no further time. Such actions on the part of the bank are unjust when the government scheme (Education Loan Repayment Scheme-ELRS) still exists and Government announced moratorium on loan repayments in case of corona virus outbreak. The actions of the opposite parties are illegal and the action of the opposite party is curtailing consumer rights. Actions of the opposite party is to suffer the complainant and it give severe mental pain and to defamate complainant and it is to be compensated. The significant matter is that the complainant is willing to pay the amount demanded by the bank on the basis of the Government scheme (Education Loan Repayment Scheme-ELRS). The actions of opposite party is a serious deficiency in service. Hence complainant had no other way other than to approach this Commission. The cause of actions of this case at Thopramkudy is under the jurisdiction of this Commission and it can be triable by this Commission. Hence she prayed for following reliefs:

1. May be granted a direction to opposite parties to receive the settlement amount as per the Government scheme and then to exclude complainant from the liabilities

2. May be directed to stay the recovery steps against the sureties and the parents of complainant, may be granted a direction to allow Rs.1000/- as cost of the complaint and Rs.30 lakhs as compensation from opposite party.

 

3. Opposite parties filed objection to the IA No.45/2020 and written version. Contentions of opposite parties are the following :

 

All the averments in the complaint are denied except those that are specifically admitted hereunder. This written version is filed for and on behalf of 2^nd opposite party also. The complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties since Government of Kerala is not arrayed as a party to this litigation. This complaint is time barred since the last date for submission of application for loan support scheme was on 31.10.2017. The averments in para 1 and 2 are within the knowledge of petitioner, hence she may directed to prove the averments therein. (cont....4)

• 4 -

Para 3 is not disputed. Para 4 is not fully correct hence denied. It is true that the Kerala Government has launched an Education Loan Support Scheme on 16.5.2017. Copy of scheme is document No.1. On 2.8.2017, the Government of Kerala has issued operational guidelines with regard to applicability conditions and procedure to be followed for filing claim application. Copy of operational guidelines is document No.2. accordingly the complainant had to remit an amount of Rs.75596/- on 3.8.2018. But complainant did not remit the amount. Only after remitting this amount the bank can process the application. Since the applicant did not remit the amount, the application was returned. The averments, the complainant approached with the amount, opposite party wanted to wait for some time for repaying, sanctioned amount is to be reached, manager advised that scheme would be available in subsequent years, suggested not to pay amount in hurry, Corona episode etc. are baked only to create a case for filing this petition. Para 5 to 8 are cooked up for the sake of this petition hence denied. ARC 1902/2014 was filed against complainant and her sureties before the Joint Registrar, Idukki wherein an award was passed on 13.3.2015. Copy of award is document No.3. Since complainant has not complied with the norms of Education Loan Support Scheme, opposite parties are at liberty to proceed against the complainant and her sureties to recover the loan amount. As on this day there is an outstanding of Rs.6,27,208/-. Since an arbitration award is passed in this case, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The only intention of the petitioner is to drag on and circumvent the execution proceedings. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

 

4. Complainant produced copy of following documents.

 

1) Application for educational loan repayment support scheme, (in short, ELRS) with concerned certificates, income certificate etc.

2) G.O.(P) 65/2017/Fin dated 16.5.2017 with “guidelines on educational loan repayment support scheme.”

3) Intimation regarding acceptance of application of complaint by the Bank.

 

5. Opposite parties have filed copy of following documents.

 

1) G.O.(P)65/2017/Fin dated 16.5.2017 with guidelines mentioned above.

2) Circular No.61/2017/Fin dated 2.8.2017 with detailed operational guidelines with regard to applicability conditions and procedure to be followed for filing claim application under above scheme.

3) Award dated 13.3.2015 passed by Deputy Registrar, Idukki against complainant and 3 others.

(cont...5)

- 5 -

6. Eventhough case was posted on several occasions for evidence, counsel for complainant sought time. Finally, case was posted on 23.3.2022. On that day also, counsel representing the complainant sought time till next day. Accordingly case was posted on 24.3.2022. On that day also neither the complainant nor the counsel was present. Witness also not present. Counsel for opposite parties submitted that no further evidence is necessary. Hence evidence was closed and heard the counsel for opposite parties.

 

We have examined the rival contentions of both sides and perused documents mentioned above. Document No.2 of complainant and document No.1 of opposite parties are the same. (i.e., G.O.(P) 65/2017 and guidelines mentioned above). On a perusal of the same, following points araise for consideration :

1. Whether complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to an order directing the opposite parties to receive the amount as per the scheme and exclude her from the liabilities ?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if so, complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed for ?

4. Costs ?

 

7. Point No.1:

 

The contention of opposite parties is that as the Government is not impleaded as party, complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. They have not raised a contention that Government is a necessary party to this complaint. Non-joinder of every party is not fatal whereas non-joinder of a necessary party is fatal. On going through the facts of this case, Government is not a necessary party for deciding the complaint. Government had issued guidelines for implementation of the scheme. No allegation is raised against the Government, but against opposite parties only. In these circumstances, contention of opposite parties on this score is overruled. Hence Point No.1 is answered in the negative.

 

8. Point No.2 :

 

It is found that Government had issued detailed operational guidelines for the implementation of ELRS. Certain conditions were prescribed for availing the benefit. On a perusal of the category of complainant for availing the benefit, it is found that complainant comes under the category (ii) education loan turned to NPA account on or before 31^st March, 2016 under para 2(b) of G.O. 65/2017. Both the parties contended that the reduced amount is Rs.75596/-, which has to be paid on or before 3.8.2018. (cont...6)

- 6 -

Eventhough the complainant had raised certain allegations like, opposite party informed that full amount with interest and penal interest should be paid by complainant or sureties, otherwise they will recover the amount soon and the manager said that Government scheme would be available in subsequent years and suggested that not to pay the amount in a hurry and also that she contacted the bank in March, 2020 and expressed her willingness to pay the amount and the bank manager said that, not to come to the bank as the Corona is spreading, etc., are not supported by evidence. No evidence is adduced to prove the same and it can only be treated as raised for the sake of complainant. Another allegation is that opposite party come to the house of parents of the complainant and threatened them to attach the house in which they are residing and to recover the amount soon is also not proved. Opposite parties’ contentions are that complainant is not entitled to any relief and she had not fulfilled the mandatory conditions of remitting the reduced amount in time. Hence she is not eligible for the benefit granted by the Government as per above G.O.. Complainant herself admitted that bank has fixed the reduced amount to be paid as per direction contained in G.O.(P) 65/2017 and Circular 61/2017. In para 6 of guidelines and procedures attached to above circular, it is specifically stated that borrower’s contribution should be remitted in advance with the bank and it has to be done within 90 days from the date of intimation. No such remittance was made by the complainant. It is contended by opposite parties that as the payment was not made as above, application was rejected. This contention is not disputed by complainant. There was opportunity to resubmit a rejected application after rectifying the defects. But no such claim is raised by the complainant. Besides, it is seen from document No.3 produced by opposite parties that award was passed by Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 13.3.2015 itself, against complainant and 3 others. Moreover, the complainant is not vigilant in prosecuting the matter. In these circumstances, we find that the complainant is not entitled to claim the benefit offered under ELRS scheme. So we cannot issue an order directing the opposite parties to receive the amount as per the scheme and exclude her from liabilities. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

 

9. Point No.3:

 

In the light of our finding on Point No.2, we are not inclined to allow compensation in this case.

 

10. Point No.4 :

 

In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their respective costs.

(cont...7)

- 7 -

 

11. In the result, complaint is found to be devoid of any merits and therefore complaint is dismissed. Interim Application if any filed stands disposed off.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 28^th day of April, 2022

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR., PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

 

Appendix : Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR