KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.532/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 30.08.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.392/2014 of CDRF, Kannur)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. K.N. Justin)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite party in C.C.No.392/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (in short the District Forum) had filed the appeal against the order passed by the District Forum dated 30.05.2016.  By the said order the District Forum directed the opposite party to calculate the interest rate of the loan as per the circular dated 18.11.2010 (Exhibit B4 series) and also to adjust the Government subsidy amount pending to the account and also to pay the sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as costs to the complainant.

          2.       The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:  The complainant had availed an Education Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) for his B. Pharm course from the opposite party.  The disbursement of the loan was by four instalments of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each.  The moratorium period ended on 31.03.2012.  The opposite party, bank is bound to charge only 11% simple interest on the loan amount.  But the bank charged exorbitant interest, illegally.  Apart to that the government subsidies were not adjusted in the account by the opposite party.  The total repayment amount from the side of the complainant was Rs.2,91,260/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty).  But as per the statement of the opposite party the balance outstanding amount on 18.10.2014 was Rs.98,226/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Six) instead of Rs.61,340/- (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Three Hundred and Forty).  It is due to mis-computation of interest by the opposite party.   There is deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.35,886/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Six) the excess amount charged from him and Rs.4,461/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty One) the subsidy amount from the Central Government Scheme which was not credited in the account, thus the total amount of Rs.40,347/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Seven).

          3.       The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions.  It is admitted that the complainant had availed an Education Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) from the opposite party.  The total cash remittance by the complainant in the account was Rs.2,76,600/-, including the amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) paid during the course period.  The complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount with interest @ 11%, subject to variation/changes made by the bank, from time to time in accordance with the directives of the Reserve Bank of India.   Accordingly, the present rate of interest applicable to the loan is 14.25%.  The complainant is bound to pay interest at that rate.  The government subsidies availed were already credited in the account in time.   The moratorium period ended on 31.03.2012 itself.  The interest calculated by the opposite party is not erroneous.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs to the opposite party.

          4.       The father of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibit A1 was marked on his side.  No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party and Exhibits B1 to B6 were marked on their side.   Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the District Forum has passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum the opposite party has filed the present appeal.

          5.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

          6.       Parties are referred according to their status/rank in the complaint.

          7.       There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant had availed an Education Loan for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) from the opposite party.  He had remitted substantial amount towards the loan account.  It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had remitted Rs.2,76,600/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Six Hundred), including the amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) paid by him during the course period.  The claim of the complainant is that the opposite party is entitled to realise interest @ 11% only for the loan amount.  It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties charged exorbitant interest and the government subsidies are not adjusted in the loan account.  It is stated by the opposite party that at the time of availing the loan the complainant has executed an agreement in which he agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate that may be changed/varied from time to time by the bank in accordance with the directives of the Reserve Bank of India.  The present rate of interest applicable to the loan is 14.25%.  It is stated by the opposite party that the complainant is entitled to get subsidy only for the loan released after 01.04.2009.  So he was eligible for subsidy to the last instalment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) disbursed on 08.05.2010.  They had claimed subsidy under the Central Government Scheme for the eligible amount of Rs.10,732/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Two).  But the Central Government Authorities had sanctioned only Rs.5,790/- (Rupees Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety).  It is stated by the opposite party that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  The prayer in the complaint is to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.40,347/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Seven), Rs.35,886/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Six) as the excess amount charged and Rs.4,461/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty One) the subsidy amount which was not credited in the account.  But in the affidavit filed by PW1 in-lieu-of chief examination the complainant has cut short his relief to a sum of Rs.25,979/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine) as the excess interest charges by the opposite party and the sum of Rs.4,942/- (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two) as the subsidy amount which was not credited in the account with 11% interest thereon.  In the affidavit it is stated that the amounts stated in the relief portion of the complaint are not correct and it so happened by mistake in the calculation.

          8.       Exhibit B1 is the agreement executed by the complainant in favour of the opposite party when he availed the loan.  In Exhibit B1 the complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount with interest @11% per annum.  In clause 3 of Exhibit B1 it is stated that the interest payable by the borrower shall be subject to changes in the interest rates made by the bank from time to time and the borrower agree to pay the interest at such rate fixed by the bank from time to time.  It is stated by the opposite party that the present rate of interest is 14.25%. As found by the District Forum the opposite party has not produced any document in support of their claim that the rate of interest is 14.25%.  Since the dispute was mainly on the rate of interest it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to substantiate their contention with cogent evidence.  As found by the District Forum the opposite party failed to produce any document showing the rate of interest as 14.25%.  As found by the District Forum as per Exhibit B4 the rate of interest for Education Loan is 12.50% per annum, as per the circular dated 18.11.2010.  So as found by the District Forum the opposite party is entitled to charge only the said interest rate.  So the opposite party is entitled to realise interest @12.50% for the loan amount and the complainant is bound to pay interest at that rate.  It is stated by the opposite party that the complainant is eligible to get Rs.10,732/- as subsidy under the Central Government Scheme and they had claimed that amount.  But the Central Government Authorities sanctioned only Rs.5,790/- (Rupees Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety) and the said amount was credited in the loan account of the complainant.  So there is deficit of Rs.4,942/- (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two).  The allegation of the complainant is that because of the inaction and the negligence of the opposite party he could not get the eligible subsidy amount of Rs.4,942/- (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two).  In the version filed by the opposite party it is pleaded by them that they had duly claimed subsidy amount of Rs.10,732/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Two) before the Central Government Authorities.  But the Authorities had sanctioned only Rs.5,790/- (Rupees Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety).  But they have not produced any document to show that they had submitted documents and claimed subsidy amount of Rs.10,732/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Two) before the Central Government Agencies in appropriate time.  The opposite party had no case that because of any laches on the part of the complainant, such as non-production of some document in time, he could not get the subsidy amount of Rs.4,942/- (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two) from the Central Government.  So considering all these facts the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

          9.       The District Forum directed the opposite party to calculate the interest rate of the loan as per the circular dated 18.11.2010 (Exhibit B4 series) and also to adjust the government subsidy amount pending to the account.  The counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that the relief granted by the District Forum was not the relief sought for by the complainant in the complaint.  The District Forum can mould the relief, considering the claim of the complainant, the contentions of the opposite party and the evidence adduced by the parties, even if there is no specific prayer for that.  It can be seen that the dispute between the parties is regarding the rate of interest to be charged on the loan amount and the amount of subsidy to be credited in the account.  So considering the dispute between the parties and the evidence adduced by the parties the District Forum moulded the relief and passed the Order, which is legal.  It has not caused any prejudice to the appellant/opposite party since they had gone to the trial knowing about the dispute between them and the respondent/complainant.  Considering the evidence adduced by the parties the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to calculate the interest rate of the loan as per the circular dated 18.11.2010 and also to adjust the government subsidy amount pending to the account and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as costs to the complainant.  We find that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the said finding and the Order passed by the District Forum.  So the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed.  The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

SL