This appeal is directed against the final order dated 29/02/2016 in CC No. 61 of 2015 delivered by Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar.

The fact of the case is nut shell is that one Jyoti Bikash Biswas registered a Consumer Complaint U/S 12 of CP Act against Branch Manager and chairman of Uttar Banga Khetriya Gramin Bank to the effect that complainant Jyoti Bikash Biswas in the month of October, 2010 took an educational loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- being A/C number 4000201510000218 from the OP No. 1, Uttar Banga Khetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch for higher education of his son namely Tanmoy Biswas with the assurance that they would render proper service towards the complainant and the said loan was sanctioned after preparation of mutual argument with the OP. According to the terms and condition of the said agreement, the complainant has already paid 55 installments of Rs. 1,65,000/- in total (each installment of Rs. 3,000/-) up to 04/05/2015 and outstanding balance of Rs. 4,24,882/-.

Subsequently, the complainant come to know that the Central Govt. pronounced that “Central Scheme to provide interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on educational loan taken by students for economically weaker sections from schedule Banks under the educational loan scheme of the Indian Bank’s association to pursue technical/professional studies in India”.

  Thereafter the complainant went to the OP No. 1 and 2 to discuss regarding the said interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on educational loan along with required documents i.e. annual income certificate and he is entitled to get the benefit of the said interest subsidy, but the OP No. 1 and 2 did not pay any heed towards the complainant. On 24/04/2014 the complainant submitted a letter to the OP No. 1, U.B.K.G. Bank for the purpose of obtaining the said Central scheme for interest subsidy (CSIS) which was illegally received by the OP No. 1, Bank for October, 2010 to 28/10/2014 as the CSIS was applicable for the academic year, 2009-10 and the complainant is entitled to get this Central scheme for interest subsidy.

Due to such unauthorized activities of the OPs, the complainant suffered from mental pain and agony and unnecessary harassment and there was deficiency in service adopting by the Ops, the complainant suffering from financial loss.

Hence, the complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the Ops, to get back interest which was received by the OP No. 1 and the period for October, 2010 to 28.10.2014 and also to pay (i) Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony, unnecessary harassment, (ii) Rs. 25,000/- for deficiency in service and (iii) Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs, beside other relief(s) as the forum deem fit, as per law and equity.

The branch manager Bhetaguri and chairman Uttar Banga Khetriya Gramin Bank has contested the case by filing WV and contended that as per terms and rules of the agreement of loan and the Central Govt. Scheme the claims of interest subsidy on such education loan granted in favour of the complainant. Was not entertainable and the complainant being not a Consumer had no right to register the consumer complaint.

In this case through the OP appellants secured their appearance through Ld. Advocate and filed WV but neither they filed any evidences nor they participated in the hearing of the case.

Ld. Forum, on the basis of evidences and pleading placed before it has decided the case on merit and allowed the Consumer complaint.

Being aggrieved with the order this appeal follows on the ground that Ld. Forum did not provide any opportunity to this appellant to file evidence, oral and documentary nor they were allowed to have a hearing and argument.

Rather, the Ld. Forum on hearing the complainant respondent only delivered the final order ex parte which has violated the principle of natural justice.

The further case of the appellants is that the order of Ld. Forum was irregular, unjustified, and not vested with the law and liable to be set aside.

The respondent after receiving the notice of appeal has contested the case through Ld. Advocate. Both sides of this appeal were heard through their Ld. Advocates.

                                                            Decision with reason,

Having heard the Ld. Legal counsels it reveals that the complainant for the purpose of higher education of his son Tanmoy approached the Manager of Bhetaguri Branch Uttar Banga Khetriya Bank for sanctioning educational loan for the weaker sections of the society and on the basis of documents produced, the Bank authority sanctioned total Loan Rs. 4,00,000/- on October, 2010 and opened a loan account through which the loan amount was disbursed.

The complainant used to pay Rs. 3,000/-as EMI and in this way paid 55 installments covering Rs. 1,69,000/- up to 04.05.2015.

The complainant claims that Bank has illegally obtained interest of loan amount from him for the periods from October, 2010 to October, 2014. While, the Govt. of India introduced a scheme for interest subsidy for the period of October, 2010 to 28.10.2014 educational loan, of weaker sections.

The Bank denies the same on the ground that the scheme of Govt. of India come into force on 19.05.2014 where the Govt. would take the reliability of interest subsidy and outstanding of interest of such loans which was sanctioned up to 31.03.2009.

On personal of the guideline of Govt. of India, as furnished under reference No. C/39/16/2014-15/CSIS/CMRD-124, the finance department of Govt. of India in order to provide relief to students who were sanctioned/ disbursed educational loans up to 31.03.2009 and outstanding on 31.12.2013 the Central Govt. would take over the liability of outstanding interest up to 31.12.2013.

So, the plain reading of this finance circular shows than the Govt. of India took the liability of outstanding educational loan interest up to 31.12.2013 such loans which was sanctioned and disabused up to 31.03.2009 and this scheme was confined to the Union budget period 2009 to 2010 which ended on 31.03.2010.

 In this present case the instant loan, sanctioned on October 2010 and at that point of time this scheme was not available to this particular loan as if was sanctioned after 31.03.2009.

On the contrary, the respondent complainant after RTI obtained an information that Educational Loan Subsidy Scheme has changed from 01.04.2009 and such subsidy scheme can avail by the candidate whose family income is Rs. 4.5 lakhs or less per year. As per scheme guidelines, education loans are eligible for interest subsidy to the extend of interest charge to the loan accounts, till the completion of moratorium period i.e., course period + one year after completion of studies, subject to compliance of scheme guidelines.

After going through the order sheets of the LD. Forum it reveals that the appellant bank had the reasons to make averment that they could not get the sufficient space before the Ld. Forum to represent their case and the order of ex parte against them, imposed arbitrarily.     

So, in order to have fair and proper justice the order of Ld. Forum should be set aside and to hear the case in presence of both sides afresh and shall deliver a verdict in proportionate to the factual aspect of the case in the light of the time-to-time circulars issued by the Govt. of India of Education Loan and Interest Subsidy Scheme for the students hailed from the poor families.

                                                           Hence, it is ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost. The final order of LD. DCDRF Coochbehar dated 29/02/2016 in CC No. 61/2015 is hereby set aside.

Both parties of this appeal are asked to appear before the LD Forum on 22.06.2022 for fixing a fresh schedule for hearing the case afresh.

Ld. Forum is requested to give the opportunity to the parties of the case, for adducing further evidences, if they desire and after completion of hearing final order would be delivered.

Let a copy of this order to be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. Forum.