CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 31st day of August 2013
Present: Smt. Seena.H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G.Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 8/1/2013
CC / 11 / 2013
Renya Rajendran,
D/o. Rajendran,
Sankarankandathil House,
Manali. P.O, Palakkad – 678 001. - Complainant
(By Adv. K. Dhananjayan)
Vs
1. The Manager/Authorised Signatory,
M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd.,
Regd. and Head Office SIB House,
T.B. Road, Mission Quarters,
Thrissur, Pin – 680 001.
2. The Regional Manager,
The South Indian Bank Ltd.,
Regional Office, 1st Floor,
Ghani Honda Building,
Fort Maidan, Kunnathurmedu,
Palakkad - 678 013.
3. The Branch Manager,
South Indian Bank Ltd.,
Branch Chandranagar,
Palakkad – 678 007. - Opposite parties
(By Adv. G. Ananthakrishnan, Adv. K.B. Priya & Adv. P.K. Philip )
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Brief of the complaint :-
Complainant is a student pursuing her B.E.Civil Engineering course at CMS College, Coimbatore. She passed her plus two examination in the year 2012 and was found eligible for higher education. The total expenditure including fees for the course will
approximately be Rs. 4 lakhs. Complainant’s father was not so financially sound person and hence applied for educational loan before 3rd opposite party, which is the lead bank of the said geographical area. 3rd opposite party has rejected her application stating that she does not have the requisite educational qualification viz, the minimum qualifying marks for granting of educational loan under the approved scheme of EDUSUM. According to the complainant she has scored B and B+ grade in majority of the subjects and was issued with certificate that she was eligible for higher studies. The act of opposite parties in rejecting and non granting of educational loan to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and is violation of Banking Laws and Guidelines issued by RBI. The act of opposite parties caused tremendous financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to sanction educational loan and pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service.
Opposite parties filed version contenting the following:-
Opposite parties admits that the complainant is a student who had got admission in CMS College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore affiliated to Anna University, for 1st year BE Civil Engineering under Management Quota and she had submitted the application for education loan for Rs. 3,65,000/- on 10/9/2012 along with the copies of all mark lists. As per IBA instructions admissions under management quota for all courses are kept outside the scope of IBA Model Education Loan Scheme and admission to courses outside the home state are to be considered as admission under management quota if admission is not secured through common entrance tests conducted by Govt. of India.
In order to finance the management quota students the opposite party bank has introduced a specific scheme namely EDUSUM. This scheme is for students securing admission to seats under Management quota through entrance exams conducted by Private Self Financing Colleges. As per this scheme the student should secure a minimum of 50% marks both for the qualifying examination and for qualifying subjects (viz physics, chemistry, mathematics) for Engineering. In this case the student had secured C grade in Mathematics for the plus two examination. Since she had secured less than 50% marks in mathematics, one of the qualifying subjects, the complainant does not come under the purview of this
particular scheme and hence the opposite parties rejected her application.
The application for education loan was rejected since the applicant was not eligible for the loan as per the opposite party bank education loan scheme. Opposite parties have acted only as per rules and the rejection of educational loan application of this complainant was only because the complainant had not secured required marks in the qualifying examination. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Further the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The mere fact that she had submitted an application for educational loan to this opposite party and the same was rejected for lack of minimum marks in the qualifying examination required for granting the above loan does not entitle her to come before this Hon’ble Forum for the redressal of the alleged grievances. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The evidence adduced by the parties consist of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to Ext.A14 marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B5 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Complainant and 3rd opposite party examined as PW1 and DW1.
Issues for consideration:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues No. 1 & 2
Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record. The only question to be decided is whether the act of non sanctioning of educational loan by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
The definite case of the complainant is that even though complainant has secured qualifying marks for securing higher education and got admission in a college after conducting entrance test, opposite parties denied educational loan to the complainant. Opposite parties on the other hand contented that loan was denied for want of minimum marks in the concerned subjects as per the scheme of the opposite party bank.
It is true that as per EDUSUM, complainant has secured only 48% instead of 50%
in mathematics, the qualifying subject. But it is to be noted that this is not the case
of admission to a specific course or a scholarship course where 2% itself makes a difference.
This is the case where in complainant having secured admission to a college, has applied for an educational loan. The scheme is for providing financial assistance to the needy. Complainant has secured admission after clearing an entrance test. The provision of the scheme can very well be liberalized for achieving the object of the scheme.
In S. Maran Vs The Branch Manager, SBT W.P. No. 556 of 2010, it was held in favour of the complainant who was denied educational loan. It was held that when the Govt. prescribes a mere pass for admission to SC/ST students, bank cannot deny those students the educational loan citing that the SC/ST students failed to get 45% of marks.
Madras High Court in WPC 16003 of 2912 order dated 16/10/12 has also held that a bank cannot deny educational loan to students on the ground that the students academic record is poor.
In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant has stated that here after she has availed loan from another bank and so the 1st prayer of the complainant becomes infractous. We are of the view that an amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) as compensation will meet the ends of justice.
In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees Eight thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of August, 2013.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Loan Application form submitted by complainant’s father to the 3rd oppoiste party dated 10/9/2012.
Ext. A2 - Letter (copy) issued by CMS College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore regarding the details of fees and description of course dated 14/8/2012.
Ext.A3 - Intimation (copy) served by CMS College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore regarding the commencement of classes dated 11/8/2012.
Ext.A4 - Copy of SSLC Mark list of complainant in the year March 2010.
Ext.A5 - Transfer Certificate issued by G.H.S.S, Kumarapuram to the complainant.
Ext.A6 - Income Certificate of complainant’s father dated 13/8/2012.
Ext.A7 - Mark Statement (copy) obtained by the complainant in Plus 2 bearing Reg. No.8224847 dated 15/5/2012.
Ext.A8 - Application (copy) filed by the complainant’s father to the 2nd opposite party under RTI Act dated 23/11/2012.
Ext.A9 - Rejection letter (copy) of educational loan to the complainant dated 4/10/12
Ext.A10 - Reply Letter sent by the 2nd opposite party to complainant’s father dated 30/11/2012.
Ext.A11 - Arrangement Letter for Term Loan Under Education Loan Schemes (copy) sent by the Branch Manager, SBI to complainant and her father dated 16/4/2013.
Ext.A12 - Letter (copy) sent by The Asst. General Manager, SBI to CMS College of Engineering & Technology, Coimbatore dated 19/4/2013.
Ext.A13 - Copy of Cheque issued by SBI to CMS College of Engineering & Technology dated 19/4/2013.
Ext.A14 - Mathrubhumi Newspaper dated 17/12/2012.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Circular (copy) issued by the 1st opposite party dated 25/1/2012.
Ext.B2 - Circular (copy) issued by the 1st opposite party dated 29/10/2011.
Ext.B3 - Copy of Certificate (with Mark list and Reg. No. 8224847) of the complainant issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination dated 15/5/2012.
Ext. B4 - Complainant’s Mark Statement for the admission for B.E/B.Tech – 2012 under management quota.
Ext.B5 - Mark List and Secondary School Living Certificate (copy) of complainant.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Renya Rajendran (complainant)
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1 - Smitha. G. Nair
