SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

   This complaint has been filed against the OP bank for getting an order directing opposite parties to refund the subsidy amount  Rs. 8391/- and also to refund  Rs.1600/- received by OP bank from complainant’s son’s education loan amount towards recovery charges together with compensation and cost alleging  deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

    The facts of the case as stated in the complaint  filed by the complainant are that the complainant’s son obtained two education loans of Rs.2,00,000/- each in the year 2008 and 2011 from the 2^nd OP.  According to complainant since the complainant’s son could not get job, the  repayment of loan became defaulted.  Hence OP bank filed petition before Kannur Legal Service Authority and the matter was settled in Lok Adalath conducted on 13/8/2016 for an amount of Rs.3,88,000/- and the complainant had paid Rs.3,00,000/- to OP bank on that day itself and agreed to pay the balance  amount Rs.88,000/- before 30/9/2016 without any other condition.  Complainant pleaded that on 26/8/2016 complainant received an SMS on his registered mobile with the  bank that an amount of Rs.8391/-  had been credited to the loan amount as subsidy loan amount.  Hence according to complainant his son has to pay Rs.79609/- towards balance amount for closing his liability and the said fact was informed  to bank Manager of 2^nd OP over telephone and  Manager agreed to do needful  after checking the statement .  But on 20/9/2016 informed him to remit the  balance Rs.88000/- otherwise legal action will be taken.  Thus he had paid the balance amount s.88,000/- to 2^nd OP on 26/9/2016.  Hence complainant claimed to refund Rs.8391/- from OP bank.  Another allegation of the complainant is that OP bank had collected Rs.16000/- illegally from the  loanees account under the head of  recovery charges.  Hence claimed to refund the said amount of Rs.16000/- also from OPs with compensation and cost.

    Opposite parties resisted the plea contending that though two education loans were availed in the name of complainant’s son as A/c No.18030610000755 and 180306100004098, the loan accounts became NPA on 6/2/2016.  The said two NPA accounts were settled in the National Lok Adalath conducted on 13/8/2016 with an actual waiver amount of Rs.1,67,699/- and notional   waiver of unapplied interest since February 2016 of Rs.38000/-.  So the total waiver amount is Rs.2,05,699/-.  Out of the total settlement of Rs.3,88,000/- settlement amount in proportion to balance outstanding in  A/c No. 180306100004098 amounts to Rs.65478.  Bank has credited CSIS subsidy of Rs.76459/- to the loan account till date.  Borrower has repaid only Rs.7100/- till the date of NPA towards the total loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- Hence Rs.24,791/- has been waived  from principal amount under settlement. It is submitted that after the Lok Adalath settlement complainant’s son’s loan account  was inadvertently credited with the subsidy amount without knowing that the  account was settled.  Subsequently the amount was reversed and is kept in suspense account, which has to be returned to the Government of India.  Based on the complainant’s request for the subsidy amount, 2^nd OP wrote letter to 1^st OP , but 1^st OP has instructed  2^nd OP that the complainant  is not eligible  for the subsidy. As per  RBI guidelines CSIS subsidy is  applicable only for the interest paid by the borrowers, but the complainant’s son  has not paid any interest for the loan.  So he is not eligible CSIS subsidy. The OP is prepared to return the subsidy amount lying in the suspense account to the Govt. of India, so that the amount will be useful for other loanees, who are eligible for the same.  In the case of  loan A/c No. 180306100004098 it can be seen that the interest applied in the account till date of NPA is completely  waived off and further  Rs.24791/- has been scarifised from principal under settlement.  Moreover CSIS subsidy has been credited to loan account on various dates.  Considering all the above the matter was settled in the Adalath for Rs.3,88,000/.  So the complainant cannot  claim further deduction in the settlement amount. OPs further  contended that the averment in the amendment petition of the complainant that the OPs have collected Rs.16000/- under the head of recovery charges is correct but  the said amount was included after the matter was settled in the Lok adalath is absolutely false and denied. The above said  amount of Rs.16,000/- is not charged as extra payment to the complainant. The said amount is paid by the bank as expenditure incurred as recovery charges  paid to the empanelled recovery agents including GST, which are duly paid by all scheduled banks to the approved empanelled agents as per  RBI guideline.  This is not included in the complainant’s extra amount or collected extra  from him.  Hence the complainant has no locus standi to question the bank for the purpose of usage of the settlement money. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the said amount also as claimed by the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of complaint

     The complainant has filed his affidavit and Exts.A1 to A12.  On  behalf of  OP bank, two Managers Mr.K.P.Nandakumar and his successor Manager Yeswanth.R  have filed affidavits and the  documents Exts.B1 to B6.

   Both the learned counsels for the complainant and OPs have filed  their written arguments.

      The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank in non crediting the subsidy loan amount of Rs.8391/- in loanees account and in receiving Rs.16000/- towards recovery charges from the loan account of  complainant’s son?

      The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant’s son had obtained  sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each in two education loan from the OP bank and the loan was payable in instalments.  The loan account became NPA on 16/2/2016 since the repayment  of the loan was defaulted.  Further on 13/8/2016 the matter was settled before Lok Adalath for an amount of Rs.3,88,000/- and complainant had paid Rs.3,00,000/- on the same day to the OP bank.  Further admitted that the remaining amount was Rs.88,000/- payable before  30/9/2016 and as per that complainant paid Rs.88,000/- on 26/9/2016.

  The case of complainant is that  after arrived a settlement of Rs.3,88,000/- in the  Lok Adalath and part payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on 26/8/2016 he had received an SMS on his registered mobile phone, from the government of India stating that an amount of Rs.8391/- was credited in the loan account  towards loan subsidy amount.  According to complainant the said amount is eligible to the loanee and the bank has no right to debit the said amount from his son’s loan account.  Further alleged that OP bank has illegally collected Rs.16000/- on account of recovery charges from the  education loan account.  The complainant contends that he was not informed  by the OP bank about the recovery  of Rs.16000/- from the loan account and disbursed to the recovery Agent.  According to the complainant both the amounts  had been taken by the bank after the settlement and to both the amounts the bank had no right to recover.  So his son is eligible to get refund of Rs.8391/- and Rs.16000/- from the OP bank.

   OPs contended that complainant’s son is not eligible for the loan subsidy of Rs.8391/-.  Further complainant has no locus standi to question the bank for the purpose of the  settlement money under the head of recovery charges.  OP’s version is that complainant’s son was a chronic defaulter in repaying the loan amount and he should have paid a huge amount for settling the full dues of principal amount of the loan with interest till the settlement date, but he was awarded a very lesses amount  as compromise by the bank both principal and interest.  OPs further contention is  interest subsidy is credited by the Government of India to the loan account of the borrowers who are repaying the full amount of the loan availed without any default.  So complainant’s son cannot be given subsidy amount after settlement.  According to OPs, the subsidy amount was credited in the loan account by Government accidently without knowing the  account was settled.  Subsequently the amount was reversed and is kept in suspense account by OP bank, which has to be returned to the Government of India.  Further contended that as per  RBI guidelines CSIS subsidy is  applicable only for the interest paid by the borrowers, but the complainant’s son  has not paid any interest for the loan.  So he is not eligible  for the CSIS subsidy.  According to OPs since the interest applied in the account till date of NPA is completely  waived off and arrived a settlement in the Adalath.  So the complainant cannot  claim further deduction in the settlement amount.  With regard to collection of Rs.16000/- under the head of recovery charges, the bank has right to collect the recovery charges from the  borrowers  as per the circular of RBI.  Hence complainant has no right to question the bank in collecting amount for paying to recovery agency.

   We have examined the entire material on record and given consideration to the submission of the learned counsels.  It is a fact admitted between the parties that two education loans of Rs.2,00,000/- each was advanced to the complainant’s son by the OP bank.

    Main argument  of complainant was focused on the statement of account issued by OP bank attached with Ext.A2 letter of chief manager of 2^nd OP bank dtd.26/9/2016, Ext.A9 letter dtd.29/11/2016 given from 2^nd OP bank to the complainant and the  evidence adduced by DW2  2^nd OP bank manager.  Both Ext.A2&A9 documents are admitted by OP banks.  On perusal of statement of account of OP bank, it is revealed that on 26/9/2016 an amount of Rs.8391/- has been credited to the loan account of Mr.Vishakh Viswanathan(S/o complainant).  During cross-examination DW2 also admitted the said fact and also admitted that for  the said credit, OP bank had sent SMS to the complainant.  Further stated that the amount was credited mistakenly. So it was returned to the Government.  But it is seen that DW2 could not answer to the question of learned counsel for complainant about when it was re-deposited to the government.  Ext.A9 dtd.29/11/2016 produced from the side of complainant  shows that the Zonal head of OP bank explained that though the subsidy amount of Rs.8391/- is not eligible to the complainant’s son as he is a defaulter, the amount do not refund in suspense account to government till the receipt of the final decision of this present consumer complaint. The said fact clearly reveals that OP has not re-deposited the subsidy amount to the Government’s account.  Further OPs main contention is that as per  RBI guidelines CSIS subsidy is applicable only for the interest paid by the  borrower, but the loanee in this case has not paid any interest for the loan and  moreover interest applied in the account till date of NPA is  completely waived off.  Hence complainant’s son is not eligible for CSIS subsidy.  When DW2 was in witness box he deposed that in page No.2 Education k_vknUn claimant \v am{Xw AhImis¸«XmWv, AXn\v _m¦n\v bmsXmcchImihpw CÃ?  (A)  icnbmWv. Rs.8391/-  F¶Xv k_vknUn C\¯n h¶ XpIbmWv ? AsX. AXpsIm­v Xs¶ B XpIbv¡v ]cmXn¡mc\mWv ]pÀ®ambpw AhImiw F¶p ]dbp¶p?  (A) Cu tIkn Ip«n¡v AhImiw CÃ.  ]qÀ®ambpw Hgnhm¡n apXenepw XmsgbmWv settle sNbvXXv.  DW1 further admitted that the bank has already received Rs.8914/- as subsidy in this loan  account but credited only an amount of Rs.76459/- in the loan account of the complainant’s son.  Here it is an admitted fact that the disputed subsidy amount Rs.8391/- was credited in the loan account by the Central government after the Lok Adalath settlement.  The version raised by OP bank that it was credited on mistakenly by the Government has not supported any authenticating document. OP contended that based on the request of complainant for the subsidy amount 2^nd OP wrote letter to 1^st OP, but 1^st OP has instructed 2^nd OP that complainant is not eligible for the subsidy amount.  On the other hand in Ext.A9 letter dtd.29/9/2016,1^st OP stated that the subsidy amount should be kept by 2^nd OP, till the final decision of  this case. Then without any clarification from the government, 2^nd OP bank cannot transfer the subsidy amount arrived from government to suspense  account or re-deposit  or deposit in sundry account , according to  their whims and fancies.  From Ext.A9 letter it is evident that the said subsidy amount is kept in the suspense account till the final decision of  this case.  Here OP bank admitted that the government has given subsidy of Rs.89141/- to the present borrower and the said subsidy was credited to the loan account on various dates.  Then the OP’s version that the present loanee is not eligible  for subsidy of the loan as he was a defaulter in payment of   interest, will not withstand.  Hence from  the aforesaid reasons and from the deposition of DWs1&2, the subsidy amount in dispute Rs.8391/- sent by government after the settlement, is eligible to the borrower in this case.  The debit of  the said subsidy amount from the loan account of borrower by the OP bank arbitrary, amounts deficiency in service on the part of OP bank.

    With regard to the collection of an  amount of Rs.16000/- from the loan account  under the head of recovery charge, OPs contended that collection  of the said amount is correct.  The submission of OP is that the  said amount is not  charged as extra payment to the complainant and the amount is paid as expenditure incurred as recovery charges to the empanelled recovery  Agents as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.  OP produced the guide lines of RBI marked as Ext.B1.  On the other hand complainant has argued that in Ext.B1 clause (III) stated that “ bank should inform the  borrower the details of recover agents while forwarding default cases to the recovery agency”.  Clause IV also stated that “ the notice and the  authorization letter should, among other details, also include the telephone numbers of the relevant recovery agency.  Further Banks may take reasonable precaution such as intimating the customer that conversation  is being recorded etc. clause (V) The up to date details of the recovery agency firms/campanies engaged by banks may also be posted on the bank’s web site.  It is evident that bank has not complied the clause III,IV,V mentioned in Ext.B1.  Further clause (XIV) specifically stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that loans, personal loans, etc with less than  Rs.10 lakhs can be referred to Lok Adalath.  Banks are encouraged  to use the Forum of Lok Adalats for recovery of loans less than Rs.10 lakhs as suggested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

   In the present case, there is no dispute that the loan was less than Rs.10 lakh.  Then as per the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ext.B1, the recovery of loan in dispute was referred to Lok Adalat and thus it was settled on 13/8/2016.  Ext.A2 shows that the recovery amount was taken after the settlement arrived in the Adalath.  Further it is an admitted fact that as per the settlement condition borrowers has settled the account before the agreed date.  Then there is no necessity to the bank to appoint a recovery agency and collect the recovery charge for the recovery agency from the loan settled account.  Though bank is not charged as extra payment to the complainant, they agreed that they had recovered the said amount from the borrower’s loan account.  Since the OP bank has not complied the provisions of Clause(III)(IV)(V) and (XIV) in Ext.B1 document, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP bank in collecting recovery charge Rs.16,000/- from the complainant’s son’s loan account.

   The learned counsel of complainant submitted a judgment of Allahabad High Court in which it is held that the petitioner in that case has deposited the amount with the OP co-operative society, then OP would not be entitled to collect recovery charges from the petitioner.

   Here also within the agreed date of settlement, complainant has paid the entire settlement amount before the bank.  Then OP bank has no right to collect recovery charges from the borrower.

   From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, complainant’s son is eligible to get refund of Rs.8391/- and Rs.16000/- from the opposite parties with compensation and cost.

   In the result complaint is allowed  in part.  Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.8391+Rs.16000/- to the complainant together with Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which     Rs.8391+Rs.16000/- carries interest@9% per annum from the date of  order till realization .  Complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite parties for realization of the awarded amount as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1-Lok Adalet award

A2- copy of letter remitting the remaining amount dtd.20/9/2016

A3&A4- certificate from Bank

A6-print out SMS from bank

A7-pass book

A8-educational loan scheme

A9-letter issued by 1^st OP to 2^nd Op for the clarification of the subsidy

A10-&A11- paper cuttings

A12-26/9/16-letter issued by PW1 to OPs

B1-Copy of the RBI circular

B2-copy of  complaint  against  OPs issued by PW1

B3-copy of bill of recovery agent (marked subject proof)

B4&B5-bank account statement

B6-sundry account  statement  

PW1-B.Viswanathan-complainant
DW1-K.P.Nandakumar-witness of OP

DW2-Yeswanth.R-OP

    Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                                  Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                         MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                            Sajeesh K.P

 eva                                              

                                                          /forwarded by Order/

                                                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR