Date of filing : 18.09.2014

Date of final hearing : 08.09.2017

       The instant complainant under Section 17  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( for brevity, “the Act” ) is at the instance of a  customer of State Bank of India against the Bank and the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Asansol Branch on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of them for not  realising the Education  Loan within three years  for pursuing the Engineering Course of his son Jasbir .

       Succinctly put, complainant’s case is that he obtained house building loan for Rs.4,00,000/-, a loan of Rs. 36,000/- to purchase a motor cycle and on 02.06.2006 he and his son applied for Education Loan for the sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- for pursuing the B.Tech Course of his son Jasbir at  Asansol Engineering College, being Education Loan A/C. No.11214614962 from the Asansol Branch of S.B.I. The complainant has stated that  his son Jasbir completed the B.Tech Course in the year  2008 but  the Bank did not take any formal or legal step for the recovery of the Education Loan. On  08.07.2014 the OPs unauthorizedly in clear violation of Securitization Act,  2002 and without any order of the Court and without the consent of the complainant deducted a sum of Rs. 1,73,046/- from his SB Account  No. 11182011886 maintained by OP No.1. Hence,  the complainant has lodged the complaint with prayer for several reliefs , viz – (a)  to direct the OPs to return Rs. 1,73,046/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. ; (b) compensation of Rs. 27,09,462/- ; (c) Rs. 16,416/- as loss suffered on account of reduce payment; (d) to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation and (e) Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.

       The Opposite Party Nos. 1  & 2 by filing a joint written version have stated that they have not violated any provisions of law and they have exercised their right of set off over the alleged fixed deposit in respect of Education Loan Account .

       Both the parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries .

       It would be pertinent to record that  the original complainant passed away on 27.09.2016 living behind him his wife Manjeet Kaur and two sons – Harshdeep Singh and Jasbir Singh, who have been substituted as complainants by order no.15 dated 06.04.2017 .

       Undisputedly, the complainants  procured three types of loans  - (i)  Housing Building Loan for Rs. 4,00,000/- ; (ii) Term Loan of Rs. 36,000/- to purchase of a two wheeler and (iii) Education Loan of Rs. 1,05,000/- for pursuing study of Jasbir in an Engineering College.

       The material on record indicates that   the house building loan was sanctioned on 10.03.2003 and the complainant repaid the said loan in 96 EMIs @ Rs.5860- p.m. beginning for the month March, 2004 and concluded on February, 2012 but the same was got closed by the complainant on payment of a lump  - sum of Rs.1,42,379.43 on 10.09.2010.

       On 02.06.2004 the complainant procured a term loan of Rs. 36,000/- to purchase of a two wheeler and the bank deducted all the EMIs from the SB Account No.1141 265090 and there is also no outstanding on that account.

       Subsequently, on 02.06.2006, the complainant and his son Jasbir had applied for Education Loan of Rs.1,05,000/- which was sanctioned by the Bank on 06.06.2006 for pursuing the B.Tech Course of son of complainant. The complainant has asserted that though the bank deducted EMIs in respect of house building loan and two wheeler loan but did not deduct any EMI from the Account of Education Loan and nor take any formal or legal steps  for the recovery of the Education Loan.

       The record goes to show that in the month of July, 2012 complainant  received a notice from the bank asking him to pay a sum of Rs.1,34,396/- due  together with interest @ 13% p.a. etc within  15 days towards the said loan. As the complainant did not adhere to the said notice, the bank has deducted a sum of Rs. 1,73,046/- from the SB Account of the complainant after transferring a sum of Rs. 25,00,937/- into the Savings Bank Account of the complainant.

       Ld. Advocate for the complainant has drawn my attention to the observation of Banking Ombudsman dated  16.06.2014 and submitted that the Banking Ombudsman directed the OP Bank to remove the ‘hold’ from F.D. Accounts of original complainant and  the  bank has failed to substantiate that the loan is not barred by law of limitation. Ld. Advocate for the OP Bank, on the other bank has drawn to the repayment clause of the agreement and submitted that on 06.06.2006  the  education loan of Rs. 1,05,000/- was sanctioned with a stipulation for repayment in  60 E.M.I of Rs. 2257/-.  Therefore, the limitation will be  two years from the date of expiry of five years of the said agreement.  He has also submitted that the complainant did not respond to the notice issued in July, 2012.

              For appreciation of the matter, it would pertinent to have look to the agreement of Education Loan. In the repayment head, it has been mentioned : “ 60 EMI of Rs. 2257/-. This EMI is stipulated if the entire interest during the moratorium is paid. If this not be the case, the entire accrued interest during the moratorium period will be added to the principal and repayment in EMI refixed accordingly. Repayment holiday Moratorium : Course period + one year or 6 months after getting job, whichever is earlier “.

        Therefore, it was also an obligation on the part of the complainants also to  repay the Education Loan in 60 EMI of Rs. 2,257/-. The complainants did not inform the bank when Jasbir obtained job after completion of his B.Tech Course. In fact, Jasbir passed the B. Tech examination in the year, 2008. Therefore, failure on the part of bank to collect the EMI in time as per loan arrangement, does not absolve the responsibility of the complainants to repay the loan and in this  regard the complainants cannot take the plea of deficiency. Moreover, the complaint should have responded to the letter given by the bank in the month of July, 2012. Therefore, the question of limitation has no manner of application in this case. In fact, I do not find any deficiency on the part of bank. to realise the amount  on account of Education Loan from the account of the complainant  and it is immaterial whether the account of the  complainant is lying at Asansol or at Kolkata.

       Considering all the above, I am of the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and as such the instant complaint deserves  dismissal.

       Consequently, the instant complaint is dismissed on contest . There will be, however, no order as to costs.