1.      This Order shall decide both Revision Petitions Nos. RP 3901 of 2017 filed by the Punjab National Bank/OP and RP 822 of 2018 filed by Jai Kishan Sharma/Complainant under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) arising from the impugned Order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 767/2016, wherein the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal of the Complainant/ Appellant and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.11,000/-. 

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint before the District Forum. Jai Kishan Sharma is the Complainant and Punjab National Bank is referred to as the OP.

3.      Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that this complaint was filed by the Complainant through his attorney Sh. SK Sharma, his father, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the Opposite Parties ("OPs") stating that he was studying in Melbourne, Australia and thus authorized his father to file this complaint through his general power of attorney. The Complainant was pursuing his higher studies in Master of Accounting & Financial Management and approached the OPs for grant an education loan of Rs.15.00 Lakhs for higher studies in Australia. The loan was sanctioned to the Complainant along with co-borrower SK Sharma, father and the individual guarantee of Smt. Karma Rekha, his grandmother. The loan was to be reimbursed in instalments, and the loan documents were executed by the Complainant in favor of the OPs on 19.12.2007.

4.      As per the loan agreement, the Complainant was required to repay the loan together with interest in 84 equal monthly instalments (EMIs), which was to commence one year after the course period or six months after getting a job, whichever was earlier. It was also agreed that extension of the repayment schedule was at the absolute discretion of the OPs. As per the agreement, the loan was to be utilized by him for pursuing studies, including payment of fees payable to the college, school, hostel, examination, laboratory fees, library, purchase of books, equipment, instruments, caution deposit, building fund, refundable deposit, supported by institution bills, receipts, travel expenses, purchase of computers essential for completion of the course, and other expenses required to complete the course like study tours, project work, thesis, etc.

5.      The course of the Complainant was completed on 14.12.2010 and result notification was received on the internet from the University, and the degree was supposed to be awarded to him in March 2011. Only after receiving the degree could the Complainant apply for a job. Therefore, he had not taken any job. The repayment of loan was to commence from 14.12.2011, but the OPs illegally, arbitrarily and against all kinds of justice and equity, on 05.05.2010 declared his account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), with Rs.18,05,461 as balance due, knowing well that the repayment schedule had not yet started. As per RBI Guidelines, an NPA can be declared if the loan instalment or interest was not paid up to 180 days. Therefore, the act of OPs to declare his account as NPA with no notice was totally illegal, arbitrary, and against RBI instructions.

6.      Further, while the loan was to be paid in instalments by OPs on completion of every semester exam, OPs committed several illegalities and irregularities in the loan disbursement, which amounted to intentional deficiency in services on their part. He was in India in February 2009 and requested the OPs to send his tuition fee to Latrobe University with an application for sending Australian Dollars 9155. However, the loan was intentionally sent to a wrong bank, i.e., Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Sydney, instead of Melbourne, without Latrobe University Swift and BSB Code number and student ID. The payment was returned by the foreign bank by deducting Australian Dollar 69. The payment was again transmitted by the OPs bank having its IBB Branch, Ludhiana, on 02.03.2009 to the correct address for Swift Code Number but with a short amount of Australian Dollar 69. Consequently, Latrobe University stopped his course and issued him a notice. The OPs also delayed payment of living expenses intentionally for over two months, by demanding a house rental receipt, which was illegal and arbitrary as no rent note or receipt is issued in Australia. Being an international student, he had to suffer very badly without his living expenses. Due to this, the landlord forced him to leave the rented house. He had no money in Australia for food and living expenses, whereas the OPs officials joked, asking his father that the Complainant could earn money by doing a part-time job. He had gone to Australia for higher studies on an education visa, not to do a part-time job. He had to request his father to send Australian Dollar 1500 for purchase of a laptop, food, living expenses and house rent. His father requested OPs in April 2008 to remit the same for the purpose of a laptop for Australian Dollar 780, house rent for Australian Dollar 440, and food and living expenses for Australian Dollar 280, but there was intentional delay of over two months by Sh. VK Jeti, Branch Manager and Shri Balvir, Loan Officer who demanded original signed copy of the quotation/ purchase receipt for the laptop purchased in Australia, which was unnecessary. The same was submitted by scanning the bill copy and details vide letter dated 10.5.2008 in original, but even then, the amount of Australian Dollar 1500 was released on 03.06.2008.

7.      On 10.3.2009, he was in India and deposited margin money of Rs. 24,317/- in his education loan, and Rs.1,02,964/- was forwarded by the OPs along with an application form for issue of foreign DD of Westpac Banking Corporation. It was also informed to the OPs that he was to board flight No. QF3954 with ticket No. F-0813304247282 on 11.3.2009. However, the OPs officials refused to issue the DD as there was a holiday in the Delhi Head Office, due to which he had to miss his flight on 11.03.2009, and for the next flight booking, he had to pay Rs. 3,000/- and had to bear cancellation charges.

8.      Latrobe University vide its letter dated 30.9.2009, informed him that in the year 2009, the enrolment of the Complainant was discontinued as he failed to pay the fee for the second semester within the specified date. As a result, he was declared no longer a student of the said University. It University further intimated him that if he wanted to revive his enrolment, he must report to the Latrobe International office reception to collect invoice to pay the outstanding fee plus Dollar 110 for revival of enrolment and after providing payment evidence, he could be referred to the faculty for revival of enrolment. Thus, he faced humiliation and an additional burden of Dollar 110 due to deficiency in services or negligence on the part of OPs. Due to late submission of education fee, there was a difference in the exchange rate from Rs. 27/- per Australian Dollar to Rs.43.50/-, which was over 60% appreciation. Therefore, he could not complete his education out of the education loan plus margin money, and there was a shortfall of Australian Dollar 6100. He thus requested his father and he arranged Australian Dollar 6100 from Indian Overseas Bank, Ludhiana, and remitted the same to him.

9.      A litigation was ongoing between M/s Guide International Export Wing and the OPs, and one application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC was filed against the OPs for committing disobedience of an injunction order dated 04.04.1997 extended till 06.02.1998. The OPs intentionally harassed him and declared his loan account as an NPA illegally and arbitrarily, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. He sought to set aside the NPA order dated 05.05.2010 and payment of Rs. 19,80,000/- as compensation.

10.    In reply before the District Forum the OPs raised preliminary objections stating that the complaint was not maintainable as he was not a consumer qua the OPs. The grievance of the Complainant involved interpretation of provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). Section 34, read with Section 35 and Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, reveals that any person aggrieved with the action of the Bank can invoke the provisions of the said Act by filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

11.    As regards declaration of the Complainant's loan as NPA, the OPs contended that M/s Guide International (Export Wing) and Guide International were family partnership concerns that availed various credit facilities from OPs Bank at Branch Office, Ludhiana. He along with his father SK Sharma had availed an education loan of Rs. 15 lakhs. SK Sharma, the father, was the Managing Partner running the business of the firms. All three loan accounts were secured by a common collateral mortgage of the property owned by Smt. Karam Rekha, mother of SK Sharma. The loan of M/s Guide International (EW) was classified as 'NPA' on 31.12.2009. Similarly, the term loan of M/s Guide International and the education loan in the name of Jai Kishan Sharma and SK Sharma were declared as 'NPA' on 05.05.2010 due to the common collateral security credited in all three loan accounts. Although education loan was repayable in 84 EMIs starting from February 2011, in order to extricate the education loan from the NPA category, the co-borrowers were requested vide letter dated 17.04.2010 to substitute a collateral security for education loan account. Despite affording a reasonable opportunity, the substituted security was not provided, leading to the education loan account being declared NPA on 05.05.2010. A recovery suit for Rs. 38.34 lakhs, including the education loan, was filed on 15.12.2010 before DRT, Chandigarh.

12.    On merits, the OPs contended that the power of attorney placed on record did not authorize the attorney to file the complaint. An equitable mortgage was created by Smt Karam Rekha as guarantor. The course cost was Rs.22.61 Lakhs and the loan sanctioned was Rs.15 lakhs, with balance amount to be arranged by the Complainant. The OPs admitted to the disbursement of the loan on various dates and denied any intentional delay in sending the expenses for fee, rent, and other charges. The delay, if occurred, was bona fide and unintentional, an error on the part of the remitting office of the OPs Bank. There was nothing wrong in demanding the original ink-signed copy of quotation/ purchase receipt of the laptop. The OPs denied the claim that payment was intentionally withheld on 11.03.2009, causing the Complainant to cancel his flight and incur Rs.3,000 additional charges. They also denied that he suffered a loss of Australian Dollar One Lakh equivalent to Rs.43.50 lakhs, calling the figures fictitious. The OPs noted that the entire sanction limit of Rs.15 Lakhs was disbursed by 10.03.2009. Any difference in exchange rate fluctuation was to be borne by him. They admitted the filing of an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC but denied any intentional disobedience of the injunction order. Ultimately, the OPs contended that the complaint was without merit.

13.    The learned District Forum vide Order dated 22.08.2016, allowed the complaint with the following findings:

"32. As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) allowed. Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) more allowed as litigation expenses. Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made by the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.”

14.    It needs to be mentioned that the Punjab National Bank/OPs did not file any Appeal against the District Forum order dated 22.08.2016.

15.    Being aggrieved by the District Forum Order, the Complainant filed Appeal No. 767 of 2016 and the State Commission vide Order dated 07.09.2017 enhanced the compensation as follows:-

“12. We have heard Mr.S.K. Sharma representative of the complainant and Mr. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate for the respondents/ OPs and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties.  Before taking the grounds of appellant as referred by the appellant in person through its representative, the respondents in their written arguments have stated that the matter is required to be referred to the Civil jurisdiction. It is pertinent to mention here that the State Commission vide its order dated 26.3.2015 have already passed the order that the matter is not required to be referred to the Civil Court and District Forum was directed to decide the complaint on merits.

13. Another point was taken by the counsel for the respondents that the complainant has referred imaginary loss of Rs. 1.20 crores, which does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. However, in the complaint filed by the complainant in para No. 17, the loss as estimated by the complainant was Rs. 19,80,000/- and this complaint was never amended and Ops before the District Forum has not taken any legal objection with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, this argument raised by the counsel for the respondents in the written arguments is without justification and against the facts on the file.

14. It was further submitted by the counsel for the respondents/Ops that the order passed by the learned District Forum is justified, therefore, it be upheld.

15.      In the arguments raised by the appellant, it has been stated that the quantum of Rs.50,000/- allowed by the District Forum is quite inadequate.  With regard to the NPA and late payment to the University, it has been observed by the District Forum on account of late submission of the fee in 2009, the University of Latrobe, Melbourne had terminated the enrollment for 2009 and the complainant was directed to deposit the balance amount of the fee along with $110 (Dollar), revival of enrollment fee. In fact the fee was required to be remitted on 20.2.2009. It was wrongly submitted to Common Wealth Bank of Australia, Sydney instead of Melbourne without Latrobe University Swift and BSB Code number of student ID. The payment was returned by foreign bank by deducting Australian $69. The payment was again sent to Latrobe University with Swift Code number but due to short amount of Australian $69, the payment was not taken and notice was issued to the complainant and ultimately, the payment was received on 3.6.2008. Although the District Forum has admitted the delay on the part of Ops to remit the fee of the complainant to the nominated University i.e. Latrobe University but as a result of that one semester of the complainant was dropped and that fact was not considered while determining the compensation. We are of the opinion that certainly, there was delay on the part of Ops to remit the fee to the University, which was wrongly sent to another Bank and then the amount was sent to the Latrobe University was less and after that it was made good but in the meantime the University had cancelled his enrollment and it was reinstated, subject to additional payment of $110. The amount was Rs.2,52,000/- and at least this amount should have been awarded to the complainant.  We are of the opinion that the sum awarded by the District Forum with regard to late delivery of the fee, one semester of the complainant was dropped and he had to pay additional fee of another semester by taking a loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Ludhiana, therefore, at least the fee, which was paid by the complainant to the University for an another semester i.e. Rs. 2,52,000/- should have been awarded to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of Ops for not remitting the fee to the concerned University in time.

16. Another point has been taken by the appellant/ complainant is that there was delay of two months in disbursing house rent/living charges. However, as observed by the District Forum, no specific evidence has come that due to some delay in payment of rent, the complainant was ejected from the rented premises. It has been observed that normally students do a part-time job, therefore, they maintain these charges and a part of expenses were to be borne by the student. Therefore, delay in disbursing house rent/living charges etc. is not intentional on the part of Ops. For Laptop charges, there was delay in submitting the bill of the Laptop. It was submitted on 10.5.2008 and the amount was released on 3.6.2008. Therefore, there does not seem any intentional delay in releasing a house rent diet amount and Laptop charges in favour of the complainant.

17.      Litigation expenses awarded the complainant is very less because case remained pending from 2011 to 2016 for a period of long 5 years and it does not cover the delay expenses and the visit of the appellant/complainant.  We are of the opinion that the counsel fee allowed by the District Forum is not adequate, it awarded @ Rs.11,000/-.

18.      No other worthwhile point was taken by the representative of the appellant/complainant.

19.      In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation by the District Forum to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- is quite inadequate keeping in view the gravity of the situation of a student, who had taken education loan and in order to avoid any difficulty at a foreign land, the amount should be released promptly after receipt of the intimation. However, there is delay on the part of Ops in releasing the payment as referred above to the Latrobe University and wrongly declaring the account of the complainant as NPA, in these circumstances, the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is quite less, we enhance this compensation to Rs. 3 Lacs.

20. Sequel to the above, we partly allow this appeal and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. 3 Lacs) and litigation expenses from Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 11,000/-. The Ops are directed to make this payment to the complainant within a period of 45 days, after the receipt of the order from this Commission, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual date of payment.’’

16.    Dissatisfied by the Order of the State Commission, both the parties i.e., the Complainant and the OPs filed the present cross Revision Petitions before this Commission with the following prayer.

RP/3901/2017 – filed by the OP-Punjab National Bank.

“a) That this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to admit the Revision Petition, call for the record of the case from the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and District Forum Ludhiana and after perusing the same set aside the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission and dismiss the Appeal of the respondent;

b) And / or pass any other order / orders as may deem fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case In the interest of justice.”

RP/822/2018-filed by the Complainant-Jai Kishan Sharma

Accept Revision Petition by revising impugned order dated 18.4.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana as well as the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh

Allow the Revision as prayed in original complaint, in the interest of justice so that long eluding & proper justice is imparted to the Revision Petitioner at your gracious hands

To grant adequate compensation & damages for delay in releasing the:

a) food & living expenses & Laptop expenses along with its related accessories, books, softwares etc.

b) remittance of Education Fees of AUD $9155- causing loss of whole Semester

c) issuance of Draft of Rs.78647/-, dated 10-03-2009

d) Setback to the image of the Revision Petitioner in foreign shores

e) Causing sickness to the Revision Petitioner & termination of his enrolment besides throwing out by the landlord

f) Wastage of his precious total academic period of one year

g) emails sent by P.N.B. to Latrobe University, Australia of N.P.A. & Default Notice u/s 13 SARFAESI ACT. There was devaluation of Indian Rupee from Rs.27.50 to Rs.47.00 approx. from December, 2007 to December, 2010 i.e. up to approx. 64% resulting in increased value of education fees & living expenses & enhance the compensation to Rs.99,90,000/- (Rs. Ninety Nine Lac Ninety Thousand only), as per the tagged CHART, with costs of the Revision Petition & punish the guilty bank officials & the Bank.”

17.    Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material on record inter-alia Orders of both the fora.

18.    It is an admitted fact that the Punjab National Bank (OPs) did not challenge the Order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the District Forum. Consequently, the said order has become final.

19.    The only remaining dispute is whether the learned State Commission rightly enhanced the amount of compensation vide its order dated 07.09.2017? In this regard, it is an admitted position that the total expenditure in question for which education loan was taken was Rs.18,05,461/-. Of this, Rs.15,00,000/- was granted as loan by OP Bank. Therefore, the Complainant was to meet the balance of the expenditure. Therefore, his contention that he was severely handicapped to meet his routine payments deserves to be viewed accordingly. At the same time, it is also an admitted position that there were certain delays and lapses in remitting the requests for remitting loan installments by the OP Bank. On one occasion, the remittance was made into a wrong account of a Foreign Bank and, as a consequence the Complainant had suffered financial loss and delay in payment of fees resulting in admission being cancelled and thereafter restored only after payment of fine. It is also a matter of fact that OP Bank had granted educational loan in INR Rs.15 Lakhs to the Complainant. While this loan granted has no specific nexus with the Australian Dollar, except for determining the expenditure liability of the Complainant towards his education in Australia, however, the delay in remittance of the installments by the OP Bank has resulted in substantial loss to the Complainant on account of sudden and steep Dollar surge in the interim. With due regard to above deliberations, the compensation awarded by the learned State Commission is just and appropriate.

20.    In the present case, the Complainant has not brought any new ground for further enhancement of compensation.

21.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which is pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts emerged and the arguments made, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act. In this regard, I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

22.    The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under: -

"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the OP-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

23.    Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally  or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

24.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity with the reasoned orders passed by the learned State Commission. Therefore, both the present Revision Petitions No.3901 of 2017 and 822 of 2018 are dismissed.

25.    There shall be no order as to costs.

26.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.