BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 638 of 2019
Date of Institution: 05.11.2019
Date of Decision : 31.03.2022
Miss Geenia Garg daughter of Shri Lachhman Dass Garg, resident of B-15/157/2, Bansal Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager/ Competent Authority/ Authorized signatory Branch at JCD Barnala Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
2. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
3. Zonal Manager State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana- 134109.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……………PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) on the averments that Central Government of India in order to encourage and able the students belonging to economically weaker sections launched a scheme namely Sector Interest Subsidy Scheme, 2009 on Model Education Loan Scheme of IBA. Under this scheme interest subsidy is given during the moratorium period i.e. Course period plus one year on education loan taken from the Scheduled Banks under the Model Education Loan Scheme of Indian Banks Association to students belonging to economically weaker sections whose annual parental income is up to Rs.4.5 lacs from all sources. The subsidy is allowed for undergoing recognized Professional/ Technical courses in recognized Institutions in India and this subsidy is allowed only once. That complainant being the eligible student and fulfills all the terms and conditions of scheme applied for the education loan for doing the Engineering from ITM University Gurgaon. At the time of applying for the said loan facility, the complainant provided all the respective documents as required for the said loan under the scheme alongwith the application cum appraisal form dated 9.11.2012 and same was duly accepted by op no.1/ bank. After going through all the relevant documents and eligibility of complainant, the op bank has sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.4,25,000/- vide Loan Account No.32652315274. It is further averred that under the said Central scheme, the interest payable for the period of moratorium i.e. course period plus one year or six months after getting job, whichever is earlier shall be borne by the Government of India and is not payable by the loanee/ student.
2. It is further averred that the professional course for which complainant availed the loan facility also fully covers under the said scheme, hence complainant is also legally entitled to 100% subsidy on interest of educational loan amount. The ops have provided the subsidy amount annually to the complainant and same were accordingly credited in the loan account of complainant. It is further averred that up till 30.10.2017, the ops have disbursed the subsidy amount of Rs.1,14,395/- only while the fact remains that the total subsidy amount payable to the complainant comes out as Rs.1,84,310/- and after deduction of the paid subsidy amount, a sum of Rs.69,915/- becomes outstanding and complainant has approached the ops/ bank in this regard and filed the claim regarding subsidy amount vide complaint dated 30.10.2017, but the ops bank did not pay any heed to the claim of complainant. That thereafter on the regular visit of complainant, the ops assured her that due letter has been sent to the concerned department for the deposit of the balance subsidy amount in the account of complainant and also endorsed the letter dated 14.11.2017 to the father of complainant but despite this above said amount remained pending which the ops failed to pay till today. The complainant filed the complaint before op no.1 on 10.7.2018 and also moved complaint to the Worthy Lokpal, Reserve Bank of India but all in vain. It is further averred that complainant has completed her professional course continuously and she has never been disqualified/ discontinued the course rather after completion of course, she has joined as Assistant System Engineer-Trainee in Grade-Y with Tata Consultancy Services Limited, New Delhi and information to this effect was also conveyed to the ops/ bank. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops which was duly received by ops but of no avail. That due to the act and conduct of ops and deficiency in service on their part, the complainant is undergoing pecuniary loss and also suffered harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. Ops were served and they filed joint reply and submitted that op no.1 bank sanctioned education loan of Rs.4,25,000/- in favour of complainant in November, 2012 under Sector Interest Subsidy Scheme. Under this scheme, the complainant was entitled to interest subsidy during the moratorium period being belonging to economically weaker section. The subsidy was allowed for the students belonging to the families whose annual parental income was less than Rs.4,50,000/- from all sources. The amount of subsidy for the year 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 was credited in the account of complainant. The complainant was paid the subsidy amount up to the year 2015-2016. For the year 2016-2017, the complainant had not submitted the income certificate required for the eligibility. The op bank also sent a reminder to the complainant with the advise to send the income certificate so that the subsidy amount could be paid, but she failed to do so and as such the payment of subsidy amount was not received by the bank from the concerned department. It is further submitted that subsidy amount for the year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 had not been credited in the account of complainant for want of income certificate. It is submitted that it is wrong and denied that complainant was entitled to Rs.1,84,310/- as alleged. This was the pre-condition for the loan in the above said category that the annual income of the parents of the complainant should have been less than Rs.4,50,000/-. It is also submitted that as per version of complainant she had filed complaint to the Worthy Lokpal Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi and also to Ombudsman of the bank which are still pending and as such present complaint is not maintainable. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, special power of attorney Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, copy of application cum appraisal form for education loan Ex.C7, copy of D.P. statement of education loan Ex.C8, copy of application dated 30.10.2017 moved to Lokpal, Reserve Bank of India, Delhi Ex.C9, copy of letter of offer Ex.C10, copy of withdrawal of offer Ex.C11, copy of application dated 10.7.2018 Ex.C12, copy of postal receipt Ex.C13, again copy of application and copy of postal receipt Ex.C14, Ex.C15, copy of letter dated 14.11.2017 Ex.C16, detail of subsidy Ex.C17, copy of notification of Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education Ex.C18, copy of acknowledgment of complaint Ex.C19, copy of closure letter Ex.C20, copy of application dated 19.1.2018 Ex.C21, copy of statement of account Ex.C22 and copy of adhar card Ex.C23.
5. Ops have tendered copy of relevant page of dispatch register Ex.R1 and affidavit of Sh. Satpal Dhaka, Branch Manager as Ex.R2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. Admittedly complainant Ms. Geenia Garg for doing B.Tech (Computer Science) of four years i.e. from July, 2012 to June, 2016 applied for getting Education Loan from the opposite parties under the scheme of Central Government of India namely Sector Interest Subsidy Scheme, 2009 on Model Education Loan Scheme of IBA. As per this scheme, full interest subsidy is given to the students of economically weaker sections during the moratorium period i.e. course period plus one year or six months after getting job, whichever is earlier and this fact is also evident from copy of notification of Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education Ex.C18 which also mentions that the benefits under the Scheme would be applicable to those students belonging to economically weaker sections, with an annual parental income upper limit of Rs.4.5 per year. The complainant was found eligible for Education loan under the above said scheme and as such she was sanctioned an education loan of Rs.4,25,000/- for doing above said Course i.e. B.Tech by the opposite parties. According to complainant, she has been given subsidy of interest amount of Rs.4537/- in 2012-2013, Rs.22215/- in 2013-2014, Rs.36,944/- against the amount of Rs.38,935/- as debited by ops for the year 2014-2015 and as such an amount of Rs.1991/- remained pending for the year 2014-2015. Further, the complainant has alleged that although, an amount of Rs.49,698/- was debited from the account of complainant by the ops as interest on the loan amount in the year 2015-2016, but no subsidy was given and total amount of subsidy became Rs.50,699/- and then also for the year 2016-2017 no subsidy was given to the complainant by the ops and as such an amount of Rs.64,472/- became pending which was to be paid as subsidy to the complainant and till the month of April, 2017 during which period the complainant was entitled to subsidy amount, an amount of Rs.69,915/- became pending as subsidy amount to be paid to the complainant and complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.69,915/- from the ops on account of subsidy of interest on education loan.
8. From the copy of notification of Central Government of India placed on file as Ex.C18, it is evident that under the Scheme, interest payable by the student availing of the Educational Loan Scheme for professional course for the period of moratorium (i.e. course period plus one year or six months after getting job, whichever is earlier) as prescribed under the Education Loan Scheme of the Indian Banks Association, shall be borne by the Government. The course period of complainant was for four years i.e. from July, 2012 to June, 2016 and as complainant herself admitted that she was offered job and she joined the same, therefore, as per above said scheme, she was entitled to subsidy of interest amount for further period of six months i.e. up to December, 2016 and not for period of one year after completion of course. As such, complainant is entitled to get subsidy of interest amount up to December, 2016 and not till the period of April, 2017. Therefore, she is not entitled to an amount of Rs.5443/- being subsidy amount of interest up to April, 2017 in 2017-2018.
9. The ops have taken the plea that the complainant was paid the subsidy amount up to year 2015-2016 and for the year 2016-2017, the complainant had not submitted the income certificate required for the eligibility and the op bank also sent a reminder to the complainant with the advise to send income certificate so that subsidy amount could be paid. But however, we found no substance in the plea of ops’ bank because in its letter dated 14.11.2017 written to the father of complainant, the op no.1 bank informed him that for the subsidy amount claimed by him, a letter has been written to the concerned department and in this letter dated 14.11.2017, there is no mention of the fact that complainant has not submitted income certificate, so subsidy has not been received in his account. So, in the said letter dated 14.11.2017 of op no.1 bank, no such income certificate has been demanded by op bank. Further more, father of complainant namely Lachhman Dass Garg who is also special power of attorney holder of complainant vide Ex.C2 in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A has categorically stated that income certificate for 2016-2017 has already been supplied to the Bank and at the time of arguments, a copy of the acknowledgement of Income Tax Return of father of complainant has also been placed on file. As such, complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.64,472/- from opposite parties i.e. up to December, 2016 and ops can also take up the matter with the Ministry of HRD/ Central Government in this regard from which ops received earlier subsidy amounts for the complainant. At the first outset, ops are liable to make payment of the above said amount of Rs.64,472/- to the complainant and thereafter, the ops can claim the said amount from the concerned authority of Central Government.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make payment of Rs.64,472/- to the complainant being the subsidy amount up to the period of December, 2016 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.64,472/- from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 31.03.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
