Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/999/2012

Aman Kumar S/o Ramesh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal ,Insitutute For Poltinc And Research . - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Gujjar

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 999 of 2012.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 19.9.2012

                                                                                       Date of decision: 25.04.2016.

Aman Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Chand r/o village Panjeto, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Principal, Institute for Polytechnic & Research, Panjeto, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Manakpur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:   None for complainant.  

                Sh. Vikas Dhull, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

                Sh. Mukesh Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.           

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Aman Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had taken admission in the institution of OP No.1 in the year 2009 in the Electrical Engineering Trade. The complainant applied for education loan from the OP No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank, Manakpur Branch, District Yamuna Nagar. In September, 2009. OP No.1 i.e. Institute for Polytechnic and Research Panjeto Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar gave a certificate regarding the annual fee. The total annual fee was Rs. 32000/- and total fee for three (3) years course was Rs. 32,000 x 3= 96,000/- and the same was deposited with OP No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank Manakpur Branch. The OP No.2 paid amount of loan Rs. 32000/- for first year only but before issuing second installment for second year asked him to firstly bring the copy of result. Upon this, the complainant asked the Op No.1 for issuance of result certificate but Op No.1 refused to issue the same by saying that they will issue the certificate for whole of the course after three (3) years. In this way, Op No.1 have not issued the certificate and OP No.2 also not released the second installment for second year of the loan amount for which the complainant could not continue his study and his career has been pushed in dark. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to waive of the installments of the loan amount and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint, present complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the OPs, true and material facts has been concealed from the Forum. It has been admitted that complainant had taken admission in the institution of the Op No.1 in the year 2009 in Electrical Trade and OP No.1 issued a certificate regarding annual charges for 3 years amounting to Rs. 96,000/- ( AnnexureRD1) i.e. Rs. 32,000/- per year for sanctioning the education loan to the complainant from OP No.2. The complainant appeared in the first Semester examination held in December, 2009 but failed in the said examination. Photo copy of DMC is Annexure R-2 and copy of Gazette is Annexure R-3. The OP No.2 Bank issued a cheque bearing No. 319054 dated 13.11.2009 for a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as fee for first year in favour of OP No.1. Copy of account statement is Annexure R4. Thereafter, the complainant again appeared in for second semester examination as regular student, held in June, 2010 and he also appeared in reappear examination of first semester in June,2010. The result of the complainant remained same as before i.e. re-appear against in both the examinations. The complainant again appeared as regular student in December,2010 for 3^rd semester and also given the examination for 1^st and 2^nd semester examination as reappear but the result of the complainant in both the examinations i.e. in semester 3^rd regular and 1^st and 2^nd semester absent/ re-appear. The complainant has not paid the fee of OP No.1 for 2^nd year. The complainant again filled his form for appearing in re-appear examination of 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd semester in the month of May and June, 2011 but he remained absent from the examination. Thereafter, the complainant neither appeared in institution nor paid the actual fee for 2^nd year. Not only this, the complainant was pressurizing the principal of the institution to issue a certificate to the effect that he has passed his all examinations of 1^st and 2^nd year, so that he may be able to disburse the loan amount from the OP No.2 bank. On merit, reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 Bank filed its written statement separately by taking some preliminary objections such as no locus standi, has concealed the true and material facts from the court and complaint is not maintainable and on merit it has been admitted that complainant and his father Ramesh Chander applied for Educational Loan for Electrical Engineering to OP Bank. After completing all the formalities, Op Bank sanctioned a term loan for education of Rs. 96000/- for 3 years for diploma in Electrical Engineering subject to term and conditions mentioned in the sanctioned letter dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure R-2/1). The said education loan was to be repaid in 60 equally monthly installments after commencement of the repayment holiday/ moratorium of course/ degree period i.e. 3 years plus 1 year or 6 months after getting job, whichever is earlier. As per sanction letter dated 6.11.2009, Rs. 32000/- was to be paid for 1^st  year expenditure as tuition fee and other charges. It has been further admitted that complainant approached the Op No.2 Bank for releasing the 2^nd installment for 2^nd year expenditure and fee and the complainant was asked to produce the result of 1^st semester so that as per condition No.6 of the sanctioned letter, Op Bank can disburse the 2^nd installment to the complainant. However, the Op Bank prepared the draft No. 4435 on the same day in the name of Op No.1 but as the complainant failed to submit the result of 1^st semester to OP No.2 Bank, so, the Op No.2 bank not handed over the draft prepared by them for 2^nd semester to the complainant to save the public money and multiplicity of litigation and controversy. To clear the real position, the sixth terms and conditions of the sanctioned letter dated 6.11.2009 is reproduced as under: -

“ Bank reserves the right to give loan or continue/ discontinue yearly disbursement depending upon whether or not he/ she show good result and whether or not reports about his/her conduct are satisfactory. Such reports are required to be produced before starting of each academic year subsequent to first year. Branch to contact College/ University to send the progress report at regular intervals”.

5.                     Lastly mentioned that keeping in view the facts, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank, Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.         Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities and cost and ultimately evidence of complainant was closed by court order on dated 5.11.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and document such as Photo copy of roll number slip of 2^nd semester examination held in December/May,2010 for reappearing with the complaint in support of his complaint.

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 tendered into evidence photo copy of certificate issued for educational loan as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of detailed marks certificate as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of result sheet as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of statement of account as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of result sheet as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of reappear result for June 2010 as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of result sheet as Annexure R-7, Photo copy of reappear exam result sheet as Anenxure R-8 & R-9, Photo copy of scheme for education loan as Annexure R-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

8.                     Counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Satpal Panwar, Manager, PNB Manakpur as Annexure RW2/A and documents such as Photo copy of terms and conditions for tuition fee and other charges as Annexure R2/1, Photo copy of application for releasing of loan installment for 2^nd semester as Annexure R2/2, Photo copy of DD of amounting to Rs. 32,000/- as Annexure R-2/3, Photo copy of letter dated 5.2.2011 written by PNB to Aman Kumar as Annexure R2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.                    

9.                     We have heard the counsel for the OPs and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely.

10.                   It is not disputed that complainant got admission for three years in the institution of OP No.1 in the year 2009 in Electrical Trade after getting the education loan of Rs. 96000/- i.e. Rs. 32000/- for each year sanctioned from OP No.2 subject to terms and conditions mentioned in sanction letter dated 6.11.2009. It is also not disputed that Op No.2 Bank released first installment of Rs. 32,000/- for first year to OP No.1 institution on behalf of complainant.

11.                   The only version of the complainant is that Op No.2 Bank has wrongly and illegally with held the second and third installments of Rs. 32,000/- each despite sanctioning the loan of Rs. 96,000/- vide its letter dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure R-2/1) and due to that the career of the complainant was spoiled as Op No.1 struck off the name of complainant from the Institution.

 12.                  On the other hand, the plea of Op No.1 is that there is no deficiency in service on their part as the complainant had not deposited the required fee for the 2^nd and 3^rd year. Even, the complainant could not succeed in examination despite so many opportunities as his result remained as reappear/ absent in the 1^st semester, 2^nd semester and 3^rd semester and after that he remained absent from the institution of Op No.1.

13.                   As per version of OP No.2 Bank, 2^nd and 3^rd installments were not released to the complainant as the complainant remained failed to submit the result of 1^st semester, 2^nd semester and violated the terms and conditions of the sanction letters dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure R2/1). As per terms and conditions of the sanction letter there was a condition that complainant would show good result but in the present case the complainant remained absent as well as unsuccessful in his entire examinations of 1^st semester, 2^nd semester even in the 3^rd semester, so being the violation of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter and to avoid further litigation and misuse of public money OP No.2 did not release the 2^nd and 3^rd installments. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 also.

14.                   After hearing both the counsels and going through the contents of the complaint, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence to controvert the version of OPs No.1 & 2. Even from the contents of the complaint, it is clear that complainant remained absent and could not clear re-appear in the examination of 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd semester, which is clearly violation of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter Annexure R2/1 dated 6.11.2009. From the perusal of application and endorsement made on that application (Annexure R2/2), it is clear that 2^nd installment of education loan was duly approved by the OP No.2 Bank and accordingly, the demand draft of Rs. 32000/- was also prepared on dated 24.11.2010 (Annexure R2/3) but as the complainant failed to submit the required education certificate as per sanction letter. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

15.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 25.04.2016.

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.