Tripura

StateCommission

A/47/2016

The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Agartala Branch - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Ratan Datta - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.L Saha, Mr. K.Nandi, Mr. A. Saha

21 Feb 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.47.2016

 

 

 

 

1.Chief Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Agartala Branch, 66/A Central Road,

West Tripura, Agartala,

 

 

   ... … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

 

1.Sri Ratan Datta,

S/o Lt. Sudhir Chandra Datta,

Ramnagar Road No.6, Agartala,

District: West Tripura

 

  .… … … … Respondent/Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellant:       Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent:    In person.

Date of Hearing:          14.02.2017.

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 21.02.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

This appeal is filed by the appellant, Chief Manager, Central Bank of India who was the opposite party no.1 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1/Central Bank/Bank) before the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) under section 15 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 against the Judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum in Case No.C.C.50 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the complaint case filed by the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) was allowed directing the appellant, Central Bank of India to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner and also to receive the principal amount of Rs.2,63,000/- disbursed on 12.08.2011, if the same is paid within a period of five years i.e. on 12.08.2016, interest is to be calculated after 12.08.2016, before that no interest can be charged from the petitioner. Direction is to be followed within one month, if failed, the compensation amount is to be paid with interest @9% per annum.  

2. Heard Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, Bank as well as the complainant, Sri Ratan Datta appearing in person.
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:

Complainant Ratan Datta filed one application before the Ld. District Forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as C.P. Act) alleging that one of his relative (nephew) Sri Suman Chandra Das being a student for Technical Education applied to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Agartala Branch for study loan under Cent Vidyarthi Scheme (hereinafter referred to as Scheme). The complainant being guardian was made guarantor and upon receipt of the application of his relative Suman Chandra Das, the opposite party no.1 Bank had sanctioned study loan/term loan amounting to Rs.2,63,000/- repayable in 60 monthly installments of Rs.5,960/- each plus interest starting after 60 months from the date of disbursement of the loan i.e. 4 years study period and 12 months after the completion of course or six months after the employment, whichever is earlier, but after four years of study, in the year 2015, when the student Suman Chandra Das and the complainant intended to refund the amount of loan amounting to Rs.2,63,000/- to the opposite party no.1-Bank, the Bank charged interest on the loan amount from the date of disbursement and refused to receive the loan amount amounting to Rs.2,63,000/-. Being aggrieved by the decision of the opposite party no.1, Central Bank, the complainant filed the petition under section 12 of the C.P. Act against the Chief Manager, Central Bank of India and the Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India (Agartala Branch) as opposite party no.1 & opposite party no.2 respectively.

4. As against the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as RBI) no relief was sought for and was not necessary party, the name of RBI was struck out by the District Forum and the case was proceeded only against the opposite party no.1, Central Bank.
5. The opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that the petitioner agreed to pay the installments @ Rs.5,960/- with interest after 5 years. As per opposite party-Bank circular, interest is to be charged on monthly basis. Accordingly, interest was calculated as per RBI guideline and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.
6. Complainant, Ratan Datta in support of his claim has produced the photocopies of sanction letter, information regarding study loan, communication with the opposite party no.1, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Insurance Policy certificate, copy of the ‘Cent Vidyarthi Scheme’ i.e. Scheme of interest subsidy of Educational Loan to the students belonging to weaker section and he has also examined himself as P.W.1.
7. Opposite party, Bank did not adduce any oral evidence, but only produced rejection letter issued by the RBI Ombudsmen, statement of accounts. The appellant Bank had neither submitted the agreement with the complainant before the District Forum nor this Commission. In absence of copy of the agreement, it is very difficult on our part to discuss about the terms and conditions of loan agreement.
8. After hearing the parties, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint case filed by the complainant with directions as stated (supra). Hence the appeal.
9. Mr. Saha, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment has submitted that after the impugned judgment, the complainant has already deposited the loan amount of Rs.2,63,000/- on 31.10.2016 which was disbursed by the appellant-Bank i.e. opposite party no.1 on 12.08.2011 for a period of 5 years i.e. the moratorium period. According to him, the interest accrued on the sanctioned loan is Rs.1,10,409/- out of which the appellant-Bank received subsidy interest from the Ministry of Human Resource Department (hereinafter referred to as HRD) in total Rs.69,059/- and further interest of subsidy amount is still awaited from the Ministry of HRD. He has also submitted that as per the agreement, the complainant is liable to pay interest on the disbursed amount of the loan and when the subsidy interest will be received from the Ministry of HRD, then the same will be adjusted to the loan account.
10. Per contra, respondent-complainant, Ratan Datta appearing in person while supporting the impugned judgment relied upon the Scheme under which the study loan was sanctioned by the appellant-Bank to show that his relative borrower, namely, Suman Chandra Das is eligible for 100% interest subsidy on educational loan availed by him from the opposite party no.1 Bank as per the Scheme announced by the Ministry of HRD. He has also relied upon the sanction letter issued by the opposite party no.1 Bank on 12.08.2011, wherein, it is specifically written that Rs.2,63,000/-, the sanctioned amount is repayable in 60 months with monthly installments of Rs.5,960/- plus interest starting after 60 months from the date of disbursement of the loan. According to him, he is not liable to pay any interest on Educational Loan availed by him as co-borrower with his relative Suman Chandra Das for the period of 5 years from the date of disbursement of the loan as co-borrower Suman Chandra Das is eligible for 100% interest subsidy on the study loans availed by him from the appellant-Bank as per the Scheme. In support of his contention, he has submitted one press release dated 26.02.2011 issued by the Indian Banks’ Association. He further submits that from the statement of accounts submitted before the Ld. District Forum and subsequent to that before this Commission by the appellant Bank, it is evident that the appellant Bank received interest subsidy on sanctioned Educational Loan up to 30.09.2016 i.e. even after filing of the complaint case. He has finally contended that the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum is just and proper and not required to be interfered with.
11. Admitted position is that, the relative of the complainant, Sri Suman Chandra Das is belonging to economically weaker section and his family income is below Rs.4.5 lakhs from all sources and the opposite party, Bank after receipt of his prayer for loan has sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.2,63,000/- under the Scheme repayable in 60 monthly installments of Rs.5,960/- plus interest starting after 60 months from the date of disbursement of the loan. In the sanction letter dated 12.08.2011, it is clearly stated that the interest will be calculated after 12 months of completion of the course or 6 months after getting employment, whichever is earlier. From the Scheme, it is clear that the interest payable by the student belonging to the economically weaker section for availing study loan for Technical Course in India for the period of study as well as moratorium i.e. Course Period plus one year or six months after getting job, whichever is earlier, the Central Government will pay the interest on loan amount to the Bank on behalf of student as subsidy. It is also admitted position from the statement of loan accounts submitted by the Bank that during the period from 2011 to 2015, the opposite party, Bank received subsidy interest from the Ministry of HRD/Central Government for an amount of Rs.45,690/-. The complaint case was filed before the Ld. District Forum on 01.07.2016 and thereafter, during the pendency of the complaint case, the opposite party, Bank received the subsidy interest of Rs.5,229/- on 28.07.2016, Rs.10,397/- on 12.08.2016 and Rs.7,694/- on 30.09.2016 from the Ministry of HRD/Central Government which was also credited to the loan account being No.3136304049 of the complainant and his relative borrower Suman Chandra Das. Therefore, it can be easily said that as per scheme, borrower student and his guarantor or co-borrower are not liable to pay any interest on the loan amount from the date of disbursement till completion of moratorium period. In the instant case, the study period is four years and the moratorium period is five years i.e. four years of course period plus one year or six months after getting job, whichever is earlier. From the Press Release issued by the Indian Banks’ Association, interest subsidy for the moratorium period shall be borne by the Government of India and after the period of moratorium is over, the interest on outstanding loan amount shall be paid by the student in accordance with the provisions of the existing loan scheme of the Banks.
12. The disputes between the parties are only regarding the interest of the loan amount as the Bank Authority calculated the interest upon the loan amount before completion of 60 months from the date of disbursement though as per sanction letter and the Scheme, the Bank receipt the subsidy interest from the Ministry of HRD time to time. 
13. We have also perused the Press Release dated 26.02.2011 issued by the Indian Banks’ Association relating to Interest Subsidy Scheme for Educational Loan wherein, it is specifically stated that under a scheme announced by the MoHRD, students whose parental income is upto Rs.4.5 lakhs per annum are eligible for 100% interest subsidy on Education Loans availed from scheduled banks. It also appears from the said press release that the subsidy would be paid on interest charged during the study period as well as subsequent moratorium period before commencement of repayment. Therefore, according to us, the Ld. District Forum did not commit any wrong directing the appellant Bank to receive the principal amount of Rs.2,63,000/- which was disbursed on 12.08.2011, if the same is paid within a period of 5 years i.e. 12.08.2016, which has admittedly been deposited by the complainant with the Bank after the impugned judgment.
14. After perusal of all the documents as submitted before the District Forum as well as this Commission, we are of the opinion that at present, neither the complainant nor his relative Suman Chandra Das i.e. the borrower of the study loan are liable to pay any interest upon the disbursed amount of loan for the moratorium period as the opposite party no.1 Bank is received the interest subsidy from the Ministry of HRD/Central Government even after filing of the complaint. The Ld. District Forum rightly opined that the Bank Authority after receiving the subsidy interest from the Central Government again charging interest from the borrower student violating the scheme introduced by the Ministry of HRD/Central Government and the same is deficiency of service. Further deficiency of service is that, when the petitioner wanted to pay the amount of loan after completion of study period of 4 years, the Bank Authority refused to receive the same. It also appears from the written submission of the Chief Manager of the Bank i.e. opposite party no.1, the subsidy credited in account as and when received from the Ministry is in total Rs.69,590/- out of Rs.1,10,409/- and further interest subsidy amount is still awaited from the Ministry of HRD, meaning thereby, the interest subsidy is received by the Bank and credited in the loan account of the complainant and his relative and further interest subsidy amount is still awaited. Thus, it would be proper for the appellant Bank to take up the matter with the Ministry of HRD/Central Government from whom the opposite party no.1 received the interest subsidy earlier.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit and in consequent thereto, the impugned judgment is affirmed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura