MR. KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is a revision application preferred against the orders dated 24/04/2023 and 25/05/23, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur in CC/77/2022.

Brief fact of the Revisionist’s case is that the Opposite Party no. 1, had obtained a loan for education purpose amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) only from the Revisionist/Bank and OP no.2 stood as joint borrowers and guardians. Education Loan A/c no. 30408254304 had been initiated in the name of the OP no.1. Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only had been disbursed on 21/06/2008 from the branch of the Revisionist and subsequently further 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only was disbursed on 18/10/2008 and again 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only was disbursed on 15/01/2009 and the remaining 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only was disbursed on 05/05/2009. The Respondent no.1 had charged interest against the said loan of the OP no.1, amounting to Rs.42,862/- (Rupees forty-two thousand eight hundred sixty-two) only since 30/06/2008 to 30/04/2009, before completion of the disbursement of the full amount of the said education loan. Subsequently, Rs.1,85,386.75 (Rupees one lakh eighty-five thousand three hundred eighty-six and paisa seven five) only had been charged as interest on and from 31/05/2009 to 28/02/2011 and Rs.1,88,075/- (Rupees one lakh eighty-eight thousand seventy-five) only on and from 31/03/2011 to 26/08/2013 and Rs.88,323.75 (Rupees eighty-eight thousand three hundred twenty-three and paisa seven five) only, on and from 27/09/2013 to 08/06/2015. Further interest amounting to Rs.4,37,116/- (Rupees four lakhs thirty-seven thousand one hundred sixteen) only was charged from 27/08/2015 to 31/03/2016 and interest amounting to Rs.89,074/- (Rupees eighty nine thousand seventy four) only  from 30/09/2016 to 30/09/2017, further interest of Rs.1,06,154/- (Rupees one lakh six thousand one hundred fifty four) only  for the period from 31/10/2017 to 31/10/2018, Rs.80,699.34 (Rupees eighty thousand six hundred ninety nine point thirty-four) only  as interest from 10/11/2018 to 31/08/2019 and Rs.66,050.60 (Rupees sixty six thousand fifty and paisa sixty) only for the period from 30/09/2019 to 31/03/2020 and Rs.62,497.07 (Rupees sixty two thousand four hundred ninety seven and paisa seven) only for the period from 30/04/2020 to 31/01/2021 and Rs.17,206/- for the period from 18/02/2021 to 30/04/2021. In total the Revisionist had charged Rs.13,63,444.51(Rupees thirteen lakhs sixty-three thousand four hundred forty-four and paisa fifty-one) only as interest against an education loan of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) only, since 31/05/2009 to 30/04/2021. The OP no.1 had already paid Rs.15,80,825.75 (Rupees fifteen lakhs eighty thousand eight hundred twenty-five and paisa seven five) only up to 20/04/2022, but the Revisionist is still demanding Rs.7,20,854/- (Rupees seven lakhs twenty thousand eight hundred fifty-four) only, as outstanding loan amount as on 20/01/2022. That apart the Revisionist did not follow the guidelines of inter-subsidy of education loan as directed by the Indian Banks’ Association, Mumbai in connection with education loans. Moreover, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of HRD, Dept of Higher Education, New Delhi vide G.O. no. 11-4/2010-U-5 dated 21/04/2010 had provided that the students belonging to the economically weaker sections (family income from all sources is less than 4.5 lakhs) annually would be eligible to get the full interest subsidy, during the moratorium of educational loan. The annual income of the OP is Rs.02,89,848/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty-nine thousand eight hundred forty-eight) only for the year 2009-10 as certified by the SDO, Balurghat letter dated 09/03/2011. The OP no.1 had filed an application before the Revisionist on 23/06/2015 to increase the EMI from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only to clear the outstanding loan amount but the Revisionist suppressed about the full interest-subsidy of the Government. On 21/07/2015 the Revisionist directed the OP no.1 to pay Rs.12,045/- (Rupees twelve thousand forty-five) only in 95 (ninety-five) instalments on and from 27/07/2015. At that time the outstanding loan amount was Rs.7,48,623.75 (Rupees seven lakhs forty-eight thousand six hundred twenty-three and paisa seven five) only. The Revisionist indulged in a foul play of Rs.1,02,275/-(Rupees one lakh two thousand two hundred seventy-five) only which had been paid by the OP no.1, had been deducted towards only interest without debiting any amount towards the principal amount. The OP received government subsidy of Rs.24,000/- (Rupees twenty-four thousand) only, on 15/11/2011, but the Revisionist deducted the interest by the said amount. Being frustrated, the OPs made necessary arrangement for return of the deposited amount being Rs.7,80,825.75 (Rupees seven lakhs eighty thousand eight hundred twenty-five and paisa seven five) only which had been deducted by the Revisionist as interest and to return the documents by a Legal Notice dated 19/05/2022. The Revisionist issued replies dated 20/06/2022, but did not comply with their request. Finally, this case was lodged with necessary prayers.

Though the Revisionist appeared on 09/03/2023, after receiving summons and prayed for time for written objection. On 11/04/2023 also the Revisionist prayed for time and due to the oversight and mistake could not appear on 24/04/2023 on which date the Ld. Commission below had proceeded for ex-pare hearing and even when the Revisionist filed a written version on 25/05/2023, the same was refused on the ground ex-parte proceedings are proceeded against the Revisionist. Being aggrieved by the impugned order this revision was preferred.

                                                           Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist at the time of final hearing, had submitted that the Ld. Commission below had erroneously passed the impugned order, as the Revisionist was dealing with public money, a chance ought to have been provided by accepting the written version. He therefore prays for setting aside the impugned order.

From the impugned order it transpires that the Revisionist had failed to submit the written version within the statutory period and the case had been fixed for ex-parte hearing against the Revisionist vide order nos.10 dated 24/04/2023 and vide order no.11 dated 25/05/2023 the said written version had been filed but, the same had not been accepted, on the ground that the case had proceeded ex-parte against the Revisionist. Firstly, the question of statutory limitation is concerned, it has been settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. SCC 757: (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 338, that no Forum/Commission had the power to extend the statutory period beyond fifteen days in addition to the 30 (thirty) days as provided in the Act. Therefore, this Commission is required to adjudicate whether the revision being an application u/s 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the only point to be decided is whether the Ld. Commission below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it or exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, has been violated or not. But as stated above, in view of the decision passed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. SCC 757: (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 338, there appears to be no such illegality or irregularity caused by the Ld. Commission while passing the order no.10 dated 24/04/2023.

As regards the next order i.e., no.11 dated 25/05/2023, the prayer of the Revisionist amounts to reviewing the order u/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, wherein it is laid down that such order can be reviewed only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, but there is no such error and reviewing this earlier order would tantamount to maneuvering limitations imposed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under the circumstance, this prayer on the part of the Revisionist also cannot be sustained. Hence, with both the prayers of the Revisionist being turned down the instant revision is bound to fail.

It is therefore,

ORDERED

That the instant revision being and the same is dismissed ex-parte but without cost.

The impugned orders are hereby upheld.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur for necessary information.