Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/107

Dinesh JIndal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.Maheshwari

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :        107

Date of Institution :  17.08.2015

Date of Decision :     22.04.2016

Dinesh Jindal (Advocate), aged about 28 years, s/o Naresh Jindal, r/o New Market, Near Old PNB, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                           .....Complainant

                   Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office at Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.

2. Punjab National Bank, PNB House, SCO NO. 31-42, Bank Square, Sec-17B, Chandigarh through its Authorized person/Manager.

3. Punjab National Bank, # 7, PNB House, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 c/o Rajender Bhawan, Rajender Place, New Delhi-110008 through its Managing Director/Director/Manager/Authorized person.

4. Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

                                                                                          ....Opposite Parties

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum : Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President.

                   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.

                   Sh P Singla, Member.

 

 

Present: Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Ranjit Singh Kakkar, Ld Counsel for Ops No. 1 to 3,

     OP-4 Exparte.

 

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

                                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to Ops to credit the whole interest subsidy amount in the loan account of complainant as announced by Indian Government and reverse the entries of fine of arrears and for also directing OPs no. 1 and 2 to receive only a sum of Rs 1,85,000/-actual loan amount, interest and interest on interest is to be deducted as announced by Finance Minister in Budget for 2014-15 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

 2                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant applied for education loan in the year 2008 with OP-1 for studying MBA as complainant belongs to economically weaker section of society and total income of his father and whole family is less than Rs. 4,50,000/-. In September 2009, complainant was sanctioned education loan of Rs. 1,85,000/-for MBA Studies SVIET Banur, (Patiala) for four semesters in his loan account bearing no. 0246001500000516. As per scheme, after completion of studies and on obtaining employment complainant had to repay the instalments after moratorium period. Loan was availed in 2009 and was outstanding as on 2013 and is still outstanding and the scheme of subsidy on the interest outstanding on 31.12.2013 as announced by Finance Minister is fully applicable on the said education loan of complainant, but OP has not given subsidy as announced in scheme even complainant also applied and requested orally for crediting the subsidy. Till date, interest subsidy under scheme as announced by Government of India for economically weaker section has not been provided, rather OP-1 has started charging fine from year 2009 itself even during the period when complainant studies and during the moratorium period, which is against the basic scheme of education loans. Ops have not passed the interest subsidy to the complainant as announced by Government of India in budget speech 2014-15. While sanctioning loan to complainant, economic condition of complainant and his family was taken into consideration. Complainant made many requests to OP-1 to pass subsidy and complainant applied for subsidy in 2014, which shows that complainant is eligible under subsidy scheme. OP-1 intimated complainant that the Finance Minister in his budget speech for 2014-15 has proposed interest waiver for all education loans taken up to 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013 and borrower will have to pay interest for the period thereafter and advised to submit required documents such as income tax return, income certificate issued by competent authority of his father. Ops have credited only Rs 24,041/- as interest subsidy and remaining amount of subsidy is still due towards Ops and till date, Ops have not credited the same in his education loan account. Complainant has made many requests to Ops to credit the whole subsidy in the loan account of complainant and also to refund the interest charged by OP-1 uptill 31.12.2013 alongwith other fines and arrears charged, but Ops have refused to do so and are not paying the same to the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint. He has further prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.08.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

  4                                      On receipt of the notice, OP-1 to 3 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and has no cause of action against OPs. It is averred that complaint is premature and complainant has not exhausted the internal banking process of making complaint and seeking relief by writing to the higher authorities. Moreover, relief claimed by complainant does not have any concern with Ops and is to be granted by Government of India and if complainant is eligible for relief, he would be automatically granted the same and for this purpose he need not come to this Forum. On merits, OP-1 to 3 have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It is averred education loan of Rs1,85,000/-was sanctioned to complainant in March, 2009 and out of sanctioned loan, he availed a sum of Rs75,000/- on 28.03.2009, sum of Rs35,000/- on 15.05.2009 and Rs40,000/- on 29.09.2009 and Rs 35,000/-on 7.11.2009. it is further averred that as per Interest Subsidy Scheme, the same was to be available on amount disbursed after 1.04.2009 during the course and moratorium to the borrowers, whose total family income is less than Rs4,50,000/-. Complainant has not submitted any income certificate issued by competent authority, which menas that family of complainant does not belong to economic weaker section and thus, complainant is not eligible for any type of concession and OP reserves the right to recover whatever amount of interest subsidy that has been credited in the loan account in case the interest subsidy is refused by competent authority of Government of India. Complainant was asked to apply for interest subsidy alongwith relevant documents and a certificate from competent authority to show that the family of complainant belongs to weaker section of society. Complainant failed to do so. It is further averred that sum of Rs 25,684/- has been credited in the account of complainant as he was entitled only for this amount on account of interest disbursed after 1.04.2009. The amount to which complainant was eligible has already been credited in the loan account of complainant on account of interest subsidy. It is further averred that answering Ops have not provided any services to complainant, rather amount was lent on interest and thus, complainant is not the consumer of Ops. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. All other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against Ops.

   5                       Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

6                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Sr. Manager as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                           Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant applied for education loan in year 2009 with OP-1 for MBA studies. In September 2009, his education loan for Rs.1,85,000/- was sanctioned for four semesters. As per scheme, complainant had to repay the loan after completion of studies and after one year or six months after getting employment, whichever is earlier and it was only complainant who was to repay the loan after moratorium period. Government of India announced interest subsidy on education loan from time to time. Loan was availed by complainant in 2009 and was outstanding on 31.12.2013 and is still outstanding and Scheme of Government is fully applicable on education loan availed by complainant, but OP has not given the subsidy as announced  in the scheme though complainant made many verbal requests to them for providing subsidy on education loan account of complainant. It is further contended that till date interest subsidy under scheme announced by Government of India for economically weaker section has not been provided, rather OP-1 started charging fine from year 2009 itself even during his study period and during the moratorium period, which is against the basic scheme of education loan. Ops have not passed interest subsidy to complainant as announced by Finance Minister of India in his budget speech 2014-15. It is further contended that while granting loan, economic condition of complainant and his family was taken into consideration and scheme was meant to uplift them by giving education. OP-1 asked complainant to apply for subsidy and complainant did so, which shows that complainant is eligible under subsidy scheme. Finance Minister also proposed interest waiver for all education loans taken up to 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013 and borrower will have to pay interest for period thereafter. On 25.06.2013, OP-1 credited Rs. 24,041/- in the account of complainant as interest subsidy, but remaining whole subsidy is still due to be credited in his account by Ops. Complainant made many requests to Ops to credit the remaining subsidy in his account, they have refused to so and all this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great mental harassment to complainant. Ld Counsel for complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint. Complainant has relied upon documents Ex C-2, which is a copy of letter by Bank for information regarding interest subsidy, copy of publication Ex C-3. Ex C-4 is the copy of account statement showing education loan availed by complainant and Ex C-5 is folios from Financial Budget 2014-15.

8                               To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 to 3 argued that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and matter in question does not come under the purview of this Forum and relief claimed by complainant has no concern with Ops as it is to be granted by Government of India. It is admitted that complainant availed education loan of Rs.1,85,000/-in March 2009 and as per interim budget passed in February 2014, the interest subsidy was to be passed on the outstanding unpaid interest on 31.12.2013 and whatever amount on account of interest subsidy to which complainant is eligible has already been credited in his loan account by answering Ops. It is brought before the Forum that complainant has not submitted any income certificate issued by competent authority of his father, which means that family of complainant does not belong to economic weaker section and thus, complainant is not eligible for any type of concession and Ops reserve the right to recover the amount of interest subsidy, credited in his loan account in case, the interest subsidy is refused by competent authority of Government of India. Complainant was asked to apply for interest subsidy alongwith requisite documents and certificate for competent authority to prove that his family belongs to weaker section of society, but complainant failed to do so. Sum of Rs 25,684/- have been credited in the account of complainant as he was entitled for only this much amount. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

9                                    We have heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as OP-1 to 3 and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by respective parties.

10                                   We have carefully scrutinized the record and have gone through the file and evidence placed on record. There are rival contentions of both the parties and in this case, it is observed that main contention of complainant is that despite repeated requests, Ops have not passed interest subsidy to complainant as announced by Finance Minister of India in his budget speech 2014-15 and have charged fine from the year 2009 and even during the study period and moratorium period against the basic scheme of education loans. In reply, Ops averred that complainant was asked to submit relevant documents and income certificate issued by competent authority to show that his family belongs to weaker section of society, which complainant failed to do. However, Ops credited sum of Rs25,684/-in the loan account of complainant as per his entitlement and nothing more remains due as interest subsidy in his loan account. All the other allegations are totally denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

11                                            During the course of arguments, ld counsel for complainant argued that during the pendency of present complaint, the Ops have credited the amount of Rs.5,210/- in the account of complainant as interest subsidy i.e Rs.779/-, Rs.2,138/- and Rs.2,293/-on 26.02.2016 vide three separate entries and if as per version of Ops, complainant was not eligible for interest subsidy then, why they credited the amount of interest subsidy in the account of complainant. Ld counsel for Ops admitted regarding payment of this amount in the account of complainant. So, the stand of Ops that complainant is not eligible for interest subsidy has no force. All this act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops.

12                             From the above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that Ops did not prepare the subsidy case of complainant correctly as per scheme of Government of India and their stand that they have already credited the entire interest subsidy to complainant and nothing is due towards them, has no footing as they themselves credited the amount in the account of complainant towards the interest subsidy during the pendency of present complaint. Therefore, in these circumstances, we find that Ops are negligent in their act and did not prepare the interest subsidy claim of complainant correctly, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are ordered to prepare the interest subsidy case of complainant afresh as per rules and guidelines issued by Government of India and Reserve Bank of India and to send the case to the Nodal Bank appointed by Government of India under Interest Subsidy Scheme within 21 days of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 22.04.2016

 

 Member               Member          President         

(Parampal Kaur) (P Singla)      (Ajit Aggarwal)