Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/184

Svati - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        184

Date of Institution :  26.12.2014

Date of Decision :    27.11.2015

 

Swati d/o Ashok Kumar Jinda s/o Hans Raj Jindal, r/o Lajpat Nagar, St No. 5, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, Faridkot through authorised person Sh Ashok Kumar Jindal.                                                                               ...Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch Office at Kotkapura through its Branch Manager, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

2. The Chief Manager (Admin), State Bank of India Admin Office, Punjab SCO 101-108, Sector – 17 C Chandigarh.

3. Chairman, Canara Bank (Nodal Bank), Head Office, 112 J C Road, Bangalore.

4. Mininstry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

5. District Lead Bank Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank Red Cross Bhawan, Sadiq Chowk, Faridkot.…..OPs

                        Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Madan Lal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OP-3.

    Sh R S Kakkar, Ld Counsel for OP-5,

    OP-2 and 4 Exparte.

   (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

   1                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to credit the interest subsidy to her account and reverse the fine of arrears, interest charged in her education loan account and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 1,00,000/-as compensation for harassment, mental tension and agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

   2                                  Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that as economic condition of her father was not good, therefore, she applied for education loan and on 15.02.2009, she was sanctioned education loan worth Rs 4,00,000/-for MBA studies NIILM Badarpur (Delhi) for all four semesters with her loan account no. 30680300095 product code TL Education Loan PER and as per scheme, on completion of studies after getting employment, complainant started repaying the instalments being a good citizen as it was only complainant, who was to repay the loan after moratorium period. Government of India announced interest subsidies on education loans from time to time. It is contended that loan was availed in Feb 2009 and was outstanding on 31.12.2013 and is still outstanding and scheme as announced by Finance Minister is fully application on Education Loan account of complainant. It is further contended that till date, interest subsidy under Scheme as announced by Finance Minister, Govt of India in budget speech 2014-15 for economically weaker section ECW has not been provided, rather OP-1 has started charging fine from the year 2009 itself even during study period and during moratorium period, which is against the basic scheme of Education Loan. OP-1 vide letter dt 3.04.2014 informed her that her account is eligible under Subsidy Scheme and also intimated that Finance Minister in his budget speech 2014-15 prepared interest waiver on education loans taken upto 31.03.2009 and government will take over the liability for outstanding interest as on 31.12.2013 advised her to submit income tax return, income certificate issued by competent authority of her father and as per advice of OP-1, complainant submitted all requisite documents like income certificate no. 1237 dt 11.04.2014 alongwith income tax return to OP-1 as per their demand, but even after submission of all requisite documents, there was no response from OP-1. On 11.08.2014, complainant made written complaints to OP-2 to 5 and other higher authorities for claim of interest subsidy and then, OP-1 issued a letter dt 21.08.2014 to complainant stating that claim for interest subsidy as per Govt guidelines has been submitted to competent authorities and will be credited in the account as and when received, but complainant was surprised to receive  letter dt 16.10.2014 vide which OP-1 stated to submit income tax return for year 2013-14 to verify the certificate submitted by father of complainant which was uncalled for as per scheme. It is further contended that loan was given to complainant and not to her father. On 24.11.2014, OP-1 credited Rs 11,142/-in her account but remaining whole interest subsidy is still due and is not credited in her account till date. Complainant has made many requests to OPs to credit the whole interest subsidy in her loan account and refund the interest charged to her up to 31.12.2013 by OP-1 alongwith other fine and arrears as per scheme, but OPs are refusing to do the same and are not paying to complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant and she has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to credit the whole interest subsidy to her account and reverse the fine of arrears, interest charged in her education loan account and to receive only Rs 3,96,600/-  availed and calculate the amount outstanding as on 31.12.2013 as announced by Finance Minister in budget 2014-15 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 1,00,000/-as compensation for harassment, mental tension and agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation.  Hence, the complaint.

   3                                                  The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 02.01.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

   4                                                    On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objection that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and it is not maintainable in the present form as complainant has no cause of action against answering OP and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complainant is not covered under the relief of interest scheme in education loans. However, on merits, counsel for OP-1 asserted that complaint is not filed by authorized person. It is averred that as per scheme for relief of interest, only the interest component of those education loans, which were availed upto to 31.03.2009 and are outstanding as on 31.12.2013 were entitled to interest during moratorium period or the interest outstanding as on 31.12.2013, whichever is less, were eligible for relief, but as complainant has already repaid all the interest accrued and also paid amount out of the principal amount and the account was regular and no interest was outstanding, so, complainant is not entitled for any interest relief as mentioned in circular no. PB/PL53 dt 4.03.2014, from which it is clear that no interest component is outstanding on 31.12.2013 and therefore, complainant is not entitled for relief of interest as sought. It is averred that an amount of Rs 11,142/- has been credited in her loan account, but she is not entitled for any other interest subsidy under the scheme for assessment year 2014-15, which is clear from the circular dt 4.03.2014. Complainant is not entitled for relief on interest as it is clearly stated in the circular that if a student has availed subsidy once under CSIS, he is not eligible under this new scheme. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service and all the other allegations have been denied being wrong and incorrect.

   5                                                     OP-3 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable against answering OP as complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and answering OP has not taken from complainant any consideration for services rendered. On merits, OP-3 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering OP is Nodal Agency for disbursement of subsidy to education loans and State Bank of India has not sent her case to answering OP to claim subsidy. OP-3 came into picture, when the case of complainant is sent to answering OP for disbursement of subsidy, as no case was received by OP-3 therefore, they have no role to play in it and complaint against them is not maintainable and they have been wrongly dragged in litigation. Answering OP has not rendered any service for consideration and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3. All the other allegations have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

   6                                              OP-5 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that they have been wrongly sued as complainant is not a consumer of OP-5 and as per interest subsidy scheme of government of India in Education Loan, the education loan account of complainant has been credited with amount of Rs 11,142/- for which complainant was entitled as per information received from OP-1. No cause of action arises against answering OP. On merits, counsel for OP-5 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant be put to strict proof that her total family income is below Rs 4,50,000/-per year as mandatory for taking benefit of the scheme. It is reiterated that interest subsidy for which complainant is entitled as per Government Interest Subsidy Scheme in education loan has been credited in her education loan account by OP-1 as per information received. OP-5 prayed for dismissal of complaint.           

   7                                              Notice issued to OP-2 and 4 through RC on 23.02.2015 not received back. Statutory period expired. Despite repeated calls and long waiting till 4.00 pm, OP-2 and 4 did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel to contest the case. Therefore, OP-2 and 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dt 30.03.2015.

   8                                             Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Jindal as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-31 and then, closed the evidence.

   9                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Bhatia Chief Manager as Ex. OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to OP-1/3 and then, closed the evidence. OP-3 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Prabir Kumar as Ex Op-3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-3. Ld counsel for OP-5 made statement to the effect that case relates to State Bank of India and they are the best person to defend the case and OP-5 cannot give any evidence and therefore, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-5.

   10                                                  Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant applied for Education loan in the year 2009 with OP-1 for MBA studies. On 15.02.2009, OP-1 sanctioned education loan of Rs 4 lacs to complainant for her four semesters and opened her loan account. As per scheme, after completion of studies and after getting employment, complainant started repaying the instalments of loan to OP-1. The government of India announced interest subsidy on education loan from time to time. The  Finance Minister of India in his budget speech for 2014-15 proposed interest waiver for all education loans taken upto 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013, wherein Central Govt will take over the liability for outstanding interest as on 31.12.2013 and borrower will have to pay interest for the period thereafter. The loan was availed by complainant in February 2009 and was outstanding till 31.12.2013 and is still outstanding so, scheme as announced by Government of India is fully applicable on the education loan account of complainant. OP-1 issued letter dt 3.04.2014 to complainant informing that she is eligible under this subsidy scheme and advised her to submit required documents as income tax return, income certificate issued by competent authority of her father for availing the scheme. The copy of letter is Ex C-3. As per advice of OP-1, complainant submitted all the required documents as per their demand but after submitting the requisite documents, no response was given from the side of OP-1. On 11.08.2014, complainant made written complaints to OP-2 to 5 and other higher authorities for claim of interest subsidy. The copies of letters and postal receipts are Ex C-4 to C-19. Then, OP-1 issued a letter dt 21.08.2014 to complainant in which it was stated that scheme for interest subsidy as per Government guidelines has been submitted to competent authorities and will be credited in the account as and when received. Copy of the letter is Ex C-25. Then, complainant received letter dt 16.10.2014 from Op-1, in which OP-1 demanded income tax return for year 2013-14 of the father of complainant, which was uncalled for as per scheme. The letter is Ex C-26. Again the complainant received a letter dt 24.11.2014 from OP-1, vide which she was informed that Rs 11,142/- were credited in her account as interest subsidy on 24.11.2014. Copy of the letter is Ex C-27, but OP-1 did not credit the whole interest subsidy which was due to complainant in her account till today. Op-1 did not pass the interest subsidy to complainant as per guidelines of the Government of India and as per rules framed by Government and Indian Banking Associations. The complainant requested Ops number of times to credit the interest subsidy in the account of complainant and refund the interest charged in the loan account up to 31.12.2013 alongwith other fine and arrears charged in her loan account, but OPs refused the same and are not repaying the complainant. All these acts of OPs are clear cut deficiency in service and mal trade practice on their behalf for not providing the whole interest subsidy under the scheme of Government of India. The complainant being beneficiary is entitled to receive the same. The copies of statement of account of complainant are Ex C-28 to 31. The OPs may be directed to credit the whole interest subsidy amount as per guidelines of Government of India and to reverse the fine and arrears and interest charged on education loan account of complainant upto 31.12.2013 and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

   11                                            In reply to arguments of complainant, OP-1 argued that complainant has no locust standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and is not maintainable. The case of complainant is not covered under the relief of interest scheme in education loan under the Government Scheme as announced by Government. As per scheme for relief of interest on education loan sanctioned and availed upto 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013, the interest component as outstanding on 31.12.2013 were eligible for relief of interest subsidy i.e only the interest component of those education loans, which were availed upto 31.03.2009 and are outstanding on 31.12.2013 were entitled for interest during the moratorium period or the interest outstanding as on 31.12.2013, were eligible for relief, but complainant has already repaid all the interest and also paid principal amount and her account was regular and no interest was outstanding. So, complainant is not entitled to interest relief as per circular dt 4.03.2014 and same is Ex Op-1/2. It is clear from the statement of account of complainant that no interest is outstanding till 4.03.2014. Copy of circular dt 4.03.2014 is Ex Op-1/2. Copy of account statement of complainant is Ex OP-1/3, from which it is clear that no interest of complainant is outstanding on 31.12.2013. Hence, complainant is not entitled to relief of interest subsidy. Circular reveals that as complainant has already repaid the interest and also principal amount and no interest was outstanding, so, complainant is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, complainant does not fall under this Scheme. The amount of Rs 11,142/- has been credited in her loan account as interest subsidy, and she is not entitled to any other interest subsidy under the scheme of year 2014-15, which is clear from the circular dt 4.03.2014. As per circular, if a student has availed subsidy once under CSIS, he is not eligible under the new scheme. There is no deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of OP-1, OP-1 is bound to follow the rules and regulations of government and also of RBI and Head Office circulars of OP-1 from time to time. Therefore, as per guidelines of Higher Authorities, complainant is not entitled to receive any interest subsidy and present complaint may be dismissed.

   12                                                 Ld Counsel for OP-3 argued that complainant is not the consumer of OP-3. So, complaint against OP-3 is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.  It is correct that Government of India in budget  speech  of 2014-15 proposed scheme of interest waiver for the education loan taken up to 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013 and for this purpose, OP-3 is appointed as Nodal Agency for disbursement of subsidy to Education Loans. The State Bank of India has to send cases to OP-3 to claim interest subsidy and after that OP-3 have to disburse the subsidy, but in the present case, State Bank of India has not sent the case of complainant to OP-3 to claim subsidy. OP-3 only came into picture when case is sent to them for disbursement of subsidy but as no case such has been received by them so, they have no role to play. It is the OP-1 who will send the case of interest subsidy to OP-3, then, OP-3 have to make disbursement on it and as OP-1 did not send any case to OP-3 till today, therefore, OP-3 are not liable for this. OP-3 has been wrongly and illegally dragged into litigation. The complainant never approached OP-3 for her interest subsidy case. There is no deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of OP-3 and present complaint against OP-3 may be dismissed.

   13                                                  Ld Counsel for OP-5 argued that complainant is not the consumer of OP-5 and complaint against them is not maintainable. There is no cause of action against them as there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. OP-5 has nothing to do with education loan of complainant and with interest subsidy claim of complainant. The complainant has her education loan account with OP-1 and as per interest waiver scheme of Government of India 2014-15, OP-3 is appointed as Nodal Agency. Now, it is the OP-1 to prepare the case of her interest subsidy claim of complainant and to send it to OP-3 for disbursement. It is the matter between OP-1 to prepare the interest subsidy case of complainant and OP-3 to disburse the subsidy amount and nothing have to be done by OP-5 in this case. They are unnecessarily dragged into present litigation. They have no concern with this case. So, the present case against them may be dismissed with costs.

    14                                                           We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

   15                                               The case of complainant is that she raised education loan for her MBA studies from OP-1 in the year 2009 and after completing her education and getting job, she started repaying the loan amount. In the budget speech of 2014-15, the Government of India announced interest waiver scheme for the education loan, which were sanctioned up to 31.03.2009 and outstanding on 31.12.2013 and as per this scheme, the Central Government will take over the liability of outstanding interest as on 31.12.2013 and the borrower had to pay interest for the period thereafter. She was eligible under the scheme and OP-1 informed her regarding it. She deposited all the required documents for availing interest subsidy claim but OP-1 did not credit the entire amount of interest subsidy in her loan account and on 24.11.2014, only Rs 11,142/- were credited in her account towards interest subsidy claim, which amounts to deficiency in service.

   16                                                Op-1 controverted that the case of complainant does not fall under the scheme of government and she was eligible only for subsidy amount of Rs 11,142/-as already credited in her account as per scheme and guidelines issued by Government and Reserve Bank of India and now, nothing remains due as interest subsidy in the loan account of complainant. OP-3, who is Nodal Agency for disbursement of interest subsidy on behalf of Government of India replied that they have not received any case for claim of interest subsidy for loan account of complainant from OP-1. It is the OP-1, who should have to send the case of complainant to them for claim of interest subsidy and prior to that they have no role to play in this case. The stand of OP-1 is that they have already credited the amount of Rs 11,142/- found due as per interest subsidy scheme in the account of complainant and now nothing is due as interest subsidy in the account of complainant and she is not eligible to claim more subsidy.

   17                                          During the course of arguments, ld counsel for complainant argued that during the pendency of the present complaint, the OP-1 have credited amount of Rs 15,419/- in the account of complainant as interest subsidy i.e Rs 6254/- on 12.06.2015 and Rs 8165/- on 12.08.2015 and if as per version of OP-1, complainant was not eligible for interest subsidy, then, why OP-1 credited this amount in the account of complainant as interest subsidy. Ld counsel for OP-1 admitted regarding payment of this amount in the account of complainant. So, the stand of OP-1 that complainant was not eligible for interest subsidy has no force. Counsel for complainant also brought our attention towards the fact that OP-1 debited Rs 6,000/- on 6.10.2015 from the account of complaint towards legal expenses of the present complaint whereas OP-1 has no right to debit the litigation expenses of the present complaint from the account of complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of OPs.

   18                                                      From the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that OP-1 did not prepare the interest subsidy case of complainant rightly as per scheme of Government of India and their stand that they have already paid the entire interest subsidy to her and nothing is due towards them, has no footing as they themselves credited amount in the account of complainant towards interest subsidy during the pendency of present complaint and the act of OP-1 to debit Rs 6000/-from the complainant towards litigation expenses of present complaint is also illegal. Therefore, in these circumstances, we find that OP-1 is negligent in their act and did not prepare the interest subsidy claim of complainant rightly, which amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice and hence, present complaint is hereby allowed. OP-1 ordered to prepare the interest subsidy case of complainant afresh as per rules and guidelines issued by Government of India and Reserve Bank of India and to send the case to OP-3 for disbursement of interest subsidy on education loan of complainant within 21 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. OP-3 is further directed to decide the interest subsidy case of complainant within one month from the date of receipt of same from OP-1 as per rules and regulations issued by RBI. OP-1 is further directed to refund the amount of Rs 6000/-, which they have debited from the account of complainant towards litigation expenses, which are charged by them illegally. OPs are directed to comply with the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

   Announced in open Forum:

   Dated: 27.11.2014

   Member                Member           President         (Parampal Kaur) (P Singla)             (Ajit Aggarwal)