M/s.Pratap Ramanathan filed a consumer case on 17 Jun 2016 against M/s.S.Seetha in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/31/2011 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Jul 2016.
Complaint presented on: 10.02.2011
Order pronounced on: 17.06.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
FRIDAY THE 17th DAY OF JUNE 2016
C.C.NO.31/2011
1.Pratap Ramanathan,
C/O.S.Dorai Raj,
30, Pettai Agraharam,
Sholavandan,
Madurai, Tamil Nadu – 625 214.
2.Ms. S.Seetha,
Parent of Pratap Ramanathan,
Through S. Dorai Raj,
Authorized Agent.
..... Complainants
..Vs..
Indian Bank Asiad Colony Branch, 1961 – B, Vijaya Complex, Anna Nagar Western Extn. Chennai – 600 101.
2.The Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Bank Head Office, 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
Having a Branch Office at 100/101, East Avani Moola Street, Madurai – 625 001. |
| |
...Opposite Parties
\ |
|
Date of complaint : 22.02.2011
Counsel for Complainant : S.Dorai Raj (Authorized Agent)
Counsel for Opposite Parties : M/s. RRK Associates
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The 1st Complainant possessed an Engineering Degree having secured first class he want to pursue his M.S higher studies in the USA and he got admission in the University of Texas at Austin, USA. The 2nd Complainant is the aged mother of the 1st Complainant. The Complainants jointly applied for an educational loan of Rs.7,00,000/- to the 1st Opposite Party on 07.06.2008. The bank demanded for collateral security for the said loan. The total educational expenses estimated around Rs.23,00,000/-. The 1st Opposite Party unduly delayed decision in sanctioning the loan. Due to security problem and as misguided by the 1st Opposite Party, the Complainant opted for a lesser loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Complainant forced to provide a 3rd party guarantee. Nearly after two months causing hardship, inconvenience to the Complainants, the 1st Opposite Party issued the sanction ticket on 02.08.2008, barely 4 days before departure. The loan amount has to be disposed of on different stages. The 2nd semester fee was payable on 23.01.2009. The Co-borrower / 2nd Complainant sought for disbursement of balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.12.2008. The bank failed to release the said amount, the 2nd Complainant forced to encash her term deposit by way of pre-mature and thereby she sustained a loss of Rs.1,955/- by way of interest. It was only thereafter 13 days on 22.01.2009 the 1st Opposite Party released the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- waiving all conditions. The Opposite Parties committed the following deficiencies:
i) Committed gross Deficiency in Service and unfair trade practice in the implementation of a beneficial social welfare loan scheme in the priority sector intended to provide financial support to the deserving student community;
ii) Committed gross Deficiency in Service in not providing to the Complainant No.1 the loan of Rs.7 lakh even though he fulfilled all the eligibility norms laid down in the Loan of Rs.7 lakh even though he fulfilled all the eligibility norms laid down in the Loan Scheme;
iii) Committed gross Deficiency in Service in not issuing an acknowledgement for the receipt of the loan application;
iv) Committed gross Deficiency in Service in not providing authenticated copies of the loan documents;
v) Committed gross Deficiency in Service in misguiding the complainants to accept and causing inordinate delay in sanctioning, the reduced amount of the loan of Rs.4 lakh;
vi) Committed gross Deficiency in Service in obtaining a third party guarantee for the reduced loan of Rs.laks where no security at all was needed;
vii) Committed gross Deficiency in Service in not returning the third party guarantee illegally obtained;
viii) Committed gross Deficiency in Service in imposing illegal conditions in, and delaying, the disbursement of the second installment of the loan of Rs.2 lakh causing financial loss to Complainant No.2;
iX) Caused the Complainants harassment. Mental agony and hardship at every stage of the loan application in general and in creating hurdle after hurdle and imposing condition after condition add nauseum in releasing the second installment of the loan of Rs.2 lakh, in particular.
Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint seeking various reliefs including the compensation with cost of the Complaint.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:
The Complainant Sri.Pratap Ramanathan had approached the Opposite Parties for availing an Education Loan. The Complainant represented that he has secured admission for the M.S.Degree Course in the University of Texas, Austin. He had submitted a loan application on 07.06.2008 seeking a financial assistance for Rs.7lakhs against a total Educational expenses of Rs.22,86,984/- with a margin of Rs.15,86,984/- would be available by way of Fixed Deposits/Cash as sources to meet the shortfall and agreed to offer securities to the tune of Rs.16,18,972/-. As per the Model Educational Loan Scheme of the IBA a suitable Guarantor was sought for as the amount exceeded Rs.4.00 lakhs. The loan was sanctioned on 16.07.2008. On 25.07.2008 the Complainant sent a letter expressing his inability to offer securities and sought for reduction in the limit to a sum of Rs.4.lakhs and availed the said sum on 02.08.2008, a token amount of Rs.100/- was also disbursed. The margin was modified and fixed as 82.51% and the bank considered his request for the release of the amount without insisting proportionate amount of margin. Again for the second semester fees of US $ 8000 the Complainant did not bring the required margin of 82.51% however as a special case the Opposite Party released the entire unavailed limit of Rs.1,99,000/- and US $ 8000was issued by debiting the borrowers account for the difference amount. The loan application was filled in by the Complainant himself.
3. It is also pertinent to note that while releasing the loan the Complainant had on one hand stated that he would require the loan only for the 2nd year of the course, his uncle Mr.Dorai Raj representing himself to be an authorised agent sought for release of loan in the 1st year itself. The Loan Scheme itself clearly states that the loan is to be disbursed only in stages and when the mother of the Complainant sought to make a demand, the Opposite Party was constrained to remind that the loan was for the 2nd year however, when the Complainant/student himself sought for the amounts, the Opposite Parties disbursed the amounts. The Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint.
4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
5. POINT NO : 1
The admitted facts are that the Complainant applied for an Education Loan for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to study M.S. Degree at Texas University, USA with the 1st Opposite Party/Bank and when the bank wanted for collateral security the Complainant expressed his inability to furnish the same and hence the Complainant opted for a lesser loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the said loan was also sanctioned by the 1st Opposite Party.
6. The Complainant alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Parties in the Complaint are that (i) not sanctioning the loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- even though he has full filled the eligibility norms, (ii) an inordinate delay in sanctioning the loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and misguiding the Complainant to accept such lesser amount and (iii) obtained 3rd party guarantee illegally. The Opposite Parties dismissed the above deficiencies and said that they have acted everything within the time.
7. The Complainant applied under Ex.B1 application dated 07.06.2008 to the 1st Opposite Party for sanction of Rs.7,00,000/- for studies in abroad. The said amount was sanctioned on 16.07.2008 in Ex.B3. However the bank wanted to furnish collateral security as per the IBA’s Model Educational Loan Scheme, since the amount is more than 4,00,000/- i.e., the loan amount sanctioned was a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Complainant unable to furnish the collateral security, he gave Ex.B8 another letter dated 25.07.2008 to the 1st Opposite Party to consider sanctioning of Rs.4,00,000/- out of the sanctioned value of Rs.7,00,000/-. Thereafter, the 1st Opposite Party sanctioned loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in Ex.B4 sanction ticket dated 30.07.2008. It is the Complainant who himself unable to provide collateral security to the 1st Opposite Party, even after sanctioning of such amount establishes that the Complainant has fulfilled the eligibility norms to avail the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of Complainant is not sustainable and in that respect the Opposite Parties have not committed Deficiency in Service.
8. The Complainant themselves unable to furnish collateral security, and they themselves prevented the 1st Opposite Party by giving Ex.B8 letter to consider and sanction of Rs.4,00,000/- as loan and accordingly such amount was also sanctioned. Therefore, there is question of misguiding the Complainants to accept lesser loan amount. The said loan of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned within 6 days under Ex.B4 sanction ticket dated 30.07.2008. Hence, there is no delay in sanctioning the loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.
9. The 1st installment of Rs.2,00,000/- was released on 21.08.2008. Thereafter the Complainants wrote Ex.A8 letter dated 28.12.2008 and Ex.A9 letter dated 09.01.2009 to release further fund of Rs.2,00,000/- enabling the Complainants to pay fees and last date was due on 23.01.2009. The 1st Opposite Party released the fund on 22.01.2009 one day prior to the payment of fees. Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service either misguided the Complainants in accepting lesser loan amount or caused inordinate delay in sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount.
10. The next contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties have obtained 3rd party guarantee illegally. Thiru V.Ramamoorthy, Guarantor for Complainants signed in the Ex.B4 sanction ticket and in terms conditions and also in Ex.B7 consent letter. At the time of giving such consent no protest made by the Complainants. Therefore, in this respect also the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.
The Complainant relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in
1. JT 2002 (6) SC 1(Dr.JJ. Merchant & Ors Vs. Shrinath
Chaturvedi)
and orders of the National Commission rendered in
2.R.P.No.3210 of 2005 dated 14.10.2008 (Canara Bank Vs.
Shri Binay Kumar Jha)
3.O.P.No 284 of 1997 dated 05.12.2006 ( Bihar State Sugar
Corpn. Ltd., Patna Vs. State Bank of India, General
Manager, New Delhi and Ors.)
4. R.P.No.53 of 2006 dated 08.05.2006 (Reliance India
Mobile Ltd., Vs. Hari Chand Gupta)
5. F.A.No.27 of 2007 dated 05.08.2008 (CMD, Bank of
Baroda Vs. Dr.George John)
and contended that the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service. The facts in the above referred orders of the Hon’ble National Commission and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are different from the facts of the case in hand and do not support the case of the Complainants. Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not committed Deficiency in Service in this Complaint and accordingly this point is answered.
11. POINT NO :2
Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in the Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 17th day of June 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS:
Ex.A1 Letter Dt. 25.07.2008 from Complainant No. 1 to o.p.No.1
Ex.A2 E-mail Dt. 26.07.2008 from Complainant No.1 to O.P.No.1
E-mail Dt.29.07.2008 from S.Dorai Raj to Dr.S.Lakshmanan
Ex.A3 G.M. & Nodal Officer and his reply Dt. 30.07.2008
Ex.A4 Sanction Ticket dated 20.07.2008 Dt.02.08.2008
Ex.A5 E-mail Dt. 29.09.2008 from S.Dorai Raj to Dr.S.Lakshmanan
Ex.A6 E-mail Dt.29.12.2008 from S.Dorai Raj to Mr. S.Lakshmanan
Ex.A7 E-mail Dt.26.12.2008 from O.P.No. 2 to S.Dorai Raj and his reply
Dt.26.12.2008
Ex.A8 E-mail Dt.28.12.2008 from Complainant No.1 to O.P.No.1
Ex.A9 Request Form (Annexure 1) for Release of further installments
In Educational Loans Dt. 09.01.2009
Ex.A10 Specimen Letter from Student Borrower to Bank
Ex.A11 Form D-11 for Reconfirmation of Securities.
Ex.A12 E-mail Dt. 29.12.2008 from S.Lakshmanan, GM & Nodal Officer to
S.Dorai Raj and his reply Dt.29.12.2008 and E-mail Dt.28.12.2008
from Complainant No.1 to O.P.No.1
Ex.A13 E-mail Dt. 29.12.2008 from Complainant No.1 to H.O.CSC
Ex.A14 E-mail Dt.03.01.2009 from S.Dorai Raj to S.Lakshmanan
Ex.A15 E-mail Dt. 07.01.2009 from S.Dorai Raj to O.P.No.2
Ex.A16 E-mail Dt. 09.01.2009 from S.Dorai Raj to O.P.No.1
Ex.A17 E-mail Dt. 13.01.2009 from S.Dorai Raj to S.Lakshmanan
Ex.A18 E-mail Dt. 17.01.2009 from H.O.Customer Service Cell to
S.Dorai Raj and his Reply Dt. 17.01.2009
Ex.A19 E-mail Dt.19.01.2009 from Complainant No.1 to O.P.No.1 and
Reminders Dt. 20.02.2009 and 23.02.2009
Ex.A20 E-mail Dt. 23.02.2009 from H.O. Customer Service Cell to
Complainant No.1 and his Reply Dt. 27.02.2009
Ex.A21 Notice Dt. 04.10.2009 from S.Dorai Raj to O.P.s
Ex.A22 Letter Dt. 15.10.2009 from O.P.No. 1 to S.Dorai Raj
Ex.A23 Extract of passbook of A/Complaint No. 427955967 of Complainants
Ex.A24 Indian Bank Sanction Ticket No.RBS/Edu/2312 / 08.09
Ex.A25 Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No.
CIC/SM/C/2009/000579,1479,CIC/SM/C/2010/900375&
CIC/SM/A/2010/900708
Ex.A26 IBA Model Educational Loan Scheme- Adherence to guidelines
Ex.A27 Educational Loan Appraisal Note
Ex.A28 Indian Bank letter 09.01.2009
Ex.A29 Indian Bank Letter Asiad Colony Branch 10.10.2009
Ex.A30 Right to Information Act, 2005 – Shri-Prathap Ramanathan’s
application (e-mail) dated 03.12.09)
Ex.A31 RBS/EDU/IW/2312/2008-09
Ex.A32 Modified IBA Model Educational Loan Scheme
Ex.A33 Banker’s Fair Practice Code & Code of Ban’s Committed to
Customer
Ex.A34 Fair Lending Practices Code (FLPC)
Ex.A35 Common Guidelines issued RBI for Priority Sector Lending
Ex.A36 Letter dated 11.07.2008 from Opposite Party to Retail Bank segment
(Sanctioning Authority)
Ex.A37 Annexure to sanction Ticket contains General Terms and conditions
applied for all facilities/ all types of borrowers
Ex.A38 Banker’s Fair Practice code
Ex.A39 IBA’s Model Education Loan Scheme
Ex.A40 Common Guidelines issued by RBI for Priority Sector Lending
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 dated 07.06.2008 Application
Ex.B2 dated 21.06.2008 Guarantor Form
Ex.B3 dated 16.07.2008 Sanction Ticket
Ex.B4 dated 30.07.2008 Sanction Ticket
Ex.B5 dated 02.08.2008 Agreement for Educational Loan
Ex.B6 dated 02.08.2008 Disposal of Proceeds letter
Ex.B7 dated 02.08.2008 Consent Letter
Ex.B8 dated 25.07.2008 Letter
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.