BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.378/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 27^th July 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.

Member

1.     The  complainants have filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to re-compute the educational loan account of 2^nd complainant without debiting moratorium interest upto October 2015, on outstanding loan of Rs.2,80,979/- and to arrive outstanding loan as on 30.11.2016, and to direct to keep separate moratorium interest (in a separate ledger account)  and to monitor receipt of full interest subsidy from Government of India and to pay compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience, hardship with cost of the proceedings.
2.     The complainants have borrowed educational loan from opposite parties under the scheme notified by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.  The scheme provides full interest subsidy during the period of moratorium i.e., course period plus one year or six months after getting a job, whichever is earlier, on the loan amount borrowed by the students belonging to economically weaker sections (EWS) for pursuing any higher education in approved technical and professional courses in any recognised institutions in India.
3.     The complainants have filed the complaint seeking a direction to re-compute the educational loan account of 2^nd complainant without debiting the moratorium interest upto October 2015, without crediting the subsidy, on the borrowed loan amount of Rs.2,80,979/- from 01.11.2015 and to keep the moratorium interest separately (i.e. in a separate ledger) and to monitor the receipt of entire interest subsidy from the Government of India with such other reliefs. 
4.    The opposite parties sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs.2,80,979/- between 30.11.2017 to 13.01.2014.  The course was commenced from November 2012 and concluded during October 2014.  After completion of the course, the 2^nd complainant could not get a suitable appointment till December 2015.  The moratorium period constitutes November 2012 to October 2015 and the complainants were bound to pay EMI with interest from November 2015 on the borrowed amount.  The EMI was paid between October 2015 to November 2016 by both the complainants, leaving behind a balance of Rs.8,000/-.  A sum of Rs.75,864/- has been debited towards interest on loan account as on 30.04.2015.  Aggrieved with the same, the complainants alleged deficiency in service and filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
5.     The 1^st opposite party denying the allegations, filed version and submits the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable as the same is barred by jurisdiction.  The opposite parties admitted the disbursal of loan amount under the scheme which is subject to allocation of funds by the Government of India and interest subsidy subject to release of funds.  In case any delay in release of funds, the borrower is liable to pay interest for the delayed period.
6.     The opposite party admitted the payment of EMI amount between October 2015 to November 2016 and the balance of Rs.8,000/-.  The charging of compound interest is denied.  The interest subsidy amount has been credited to the complainant’s loan account as and when the funds received by them from the Government and no compound interest is charged during the moratorium period.  Further, there is no system to maintain two accounts in respect of the loan, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7.     To establish the facts, both parties filed affidavit evidence with several documents.  Written arguments filed by both and heard the submissions of both side counsels.  Perused the material on record and posted for orders.  
8.        The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainants establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite parties, for charging interest and compound interest on the loan amount during the moratorium period and thereby entitled for the reliefs?
3. What order?

9.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10. Point No.1:- The complainants pleaded that the repayment of EMI with interest on the loan amount has to be calculated from 01.11.2015, the period between November 2012 to October 2015 to be construed as “moratorium period” for repayment of the loan amount.  He repaid the substantial amount towards the loan, leaving a balance of Rs.8,000/- as on 30.11.2016.  The statement of account (Annexure-B) revealed the debit of Rs.75,864.86 to the loan account of 2^nd complainant on 30.04.2015, said to be the moratorium interest capitalization and further debit of interest and compound interest at the end of each following months during moratorium period upto 31.10.2015.  Admittedly, the opposite parties have credited some amount as and when they received from the Government of India, the same has been alleged as deficiency in service.  The complainant pleaded that, the opposite parties could have maintained a separate account to debit the interest upto October 2015 and to credit the subsidy amount as and when the same is received to avoid illegal charging of interest and compound interest during moratorium period.
11. The opposite party contended that, the borrowers are bound to pay interest, subject to allocation of funds and release of the same in time, if the release is delayed, the borrowers were to pay interest for the delayed period.  After the moratorium period, the borrowers are bound to pay interest on outstanding loan amount.  On completion of his course i.e., on 30.04.2015, the moratorium period ended, as such, the opposite party debited the interest of Rs.75,864.86, as the moratorium interest to the loan account.  The compound interest has been charged for the period of default committed.  Hence, the allegation of deficiency in service in charging compound interest on loan amount is denied.
12. From the above observations, we opine the matter on hand needs to be dealt in detail to ascertain the facts in accordance with the scheme and guidelines issued to the opposite parties, which can not be done in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As such, the parties are at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate Forum and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.  Accordingly,   point No.1 is answered in the negative.   
13. Point No.2:- In view of the above, this point does not call for discussion.
14. Point No.3:- In view of the observations made in point No.1, we proceed to pass the  following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.