Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/9/2020

Sourabh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Aug 2023

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

                                                                                      Complaint No. : 09/2020

                                                              Instituted on     : 23.01.2020

                                                              Decided on       : 17.08.2023

 

Sourabh son of Sh. Krishan Kumar, opposite Hanuman Mandir Hanuman Dhani Bhiwani.

                                                                                                    ……….………..Complainant. 

 

                                                     Vs.

State Bank of India RACC, Railway Road, Bhiwani.

                                                                                  ..…….……….Opposite party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRSIDING MEMBER.

                     SH. DM YADAV, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Complainant in person.

Sh. ML Sardana, Advocate for OP.

 

                                                   ORDER

 

SH. D.M. YADAV,  MEMBER:

1.                  This order shall dispose off a complaint preferred by the complainant on the plea that he (complainant) on 01.08.2013 approached the opposite party for grant of education loan to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- (one lac eighty thousand) to pursue his B.tech. Degree. In fact at the relevant time the Ministry of HRD, Government of India had launched an educational scheme Central Scheme of Interest Subsidy where under subsidy used to be provided on the loan amount to certain sections of the students who intended to pursue their higher studies.  On the basis of his applications OP sanctioned aforementioned loan in his favour and in this behalf it opened his account number 65173264054.

2.                  The perusal of the all documents/evidences show that the OP has not credited the loan interest amount of Rs.11902/- for the year 2014-15 and Rs.14,973/- for the period 2015-16 respectively and demanding the same from the complainant.  The dispute arose when complainant applied for loan to pursue his study of MBA and the OP declined his request stating him to clear the dues of the previous loan.  The complainant is aggrieved with this demand which he is not liable to pay according to his complaint.  He says that it was the duty of the OP to get the interest amount from its Nodal Bank i.e. Canara Bank deputed to process the request of all the loanee banks for the reimbursement of subsidy of interest amount accrued on such educational loan from the Government of India. The complainant noted that a substantial part of interest on his loan instead of being received as subsidy as per MOHRD’s CSIS scheme being charged to his loan account.  Complainant states that  not only interest, but also further interest on this interest was being added to his account for the period 2014-15 and 2015-16.

3.                  The OP has conceded it that they send a requisition through the Nodal Bank and after getting the loan interest subsidy amount credit the same in the loan account of such account holders except the period 2014-15 and 2015-16.  Moreover, the OP has admitted that the interest subsidy of the period 2014-2015, 2015-16 was not received for uploading their demand on the portal and was not credited to the loan account of the complainant whereas it was the duty of the OP to upload the demand of subsidy on the web/portal of the authorized Nodal Bank i.e. Canara Bank.

4.                  The OP has explained that interest subsidy amount could not be credited in the complainant’s account because the Canara Bank (The Nodal Bank) did not open the uploading portal during this period whereas the complainant sought information regarding non-functioning of the web-portal of the Nodal Bank through RTI no.DOHED/R/E/21/02486 dated 9.6.2021 which rebutted the claim of the OP for non-functioning of the portal. 

5.                  On appearance OP filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has neither locus standi nor has any cause of action file and maintain the present complaint.  It is further submitted that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary party.  It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the respondent Bank as the interest subsidy is claimed through subsidy portal of Nodel Bank i.e. Canara Bank, but despite efforts made by the respondent bank, interest subsidy in question could not be claimed due to non opening of interest subsidy portal of Govt. of India.  It is submitted that the subsidy was not paid by the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, who is not impleaded as respondent.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                  As mentioned in the written arguments by the OP impleading the Ministry of HRD and the Canara Bank carry no weight in its argument since it is none of the business of complainant to have joined the Ministry of HRD and Canara Bank as party in the complaint.  He has sought the loan from the OP and rest of the action regarding interest subsidy is duty of the OP as per the directions in the educational loan shceme CSIS/MOHRD.

7.                  The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit as Exhibit CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-14 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant vide order dated 12.3.2021.  On the other hand, counsel for OP has tendered in evidence affidavit as Sh. Shashi Bhan Singh, Chief Manager as Exhibit RW1/A and document Exhibit R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP vide order dated 3.2.2023.

8.                  The grievance of the complainant is that despite of number of visit and incessant letters sent to the OP but the OP never bothered to give a satisfactory reply regarding these letters resultantly he was deprived of the subsidy of his education loan for the period 2014-15 and 2015-16, which he was legally entitled to receive .

9.                  As per the education loan scheme it is the sole responsibility of the OP to sent the subsidy claim in time to Government of India HRD Department through the authority Nodal Bank failing which the Bank OP shall be responsible for the lapse not the complainant.  In this case the OP failed to do so then there is no hesitation to hold that the aforementioned act has amounted to a deficiency in service. 

10.                The perusal of all the relevant documents, evidences, written arguments of both the parties, placed on the case file and after hearing the verbal arguments we are of the considered view that the complainant has been forced to undergo official tantalization  and wastage of his precious time which he could have utilized for his studies and was kept under pressure for the payment of an amount which is not to be paid by him by the OP itself.  In the instant case the OP has not provide proper services to the complainant rather remained negligent by not crediting the interest amount in the complainant’s loan account and raised/sent unnecessary demand letters against the complainant.

11.                Therefore, in the interest of justice we allow the present complaint.  Accordingly, we direct the OP to comply with the following direction within 45 days from the date of order.

(a)      Credit the loan interest amount of Rs.11,902/- (Rupees Eleven thousand nine hundred two only) for the year 2014-15 and Rs.14,973/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand nine hundred seventy three only) for the period 2015-16 in the complainant’s account and not to charge any further interest on the amount if accrued till date.

(b)      To pay a sum of Rs.75000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) as for compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

(c )     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) as litigation and other expenses.

12.              Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: -17.08.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)            (Saroj Bala Bohra)               

   Member.                        Presiding Member,

                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                               Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Complainant in person.

Sh. ML Sardana, Advocate for OP.

 

                    Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

                   

Dt:17.8.2023           Member.                   Presiding Member,

                                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                              Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.