KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.236/13
JUDGMENT DATED 30/10/2013
(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.291/2012 on the file of CDRF, Idukki dated, 31/01/2013)
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANT:
The Branch Manager,
South Indian Bank,
Murickassery Branch,
Murickassery P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: S. William)
Vs
RESPONDENT:
Sri. Sudheendranadhan,
S/o. Raghavapanicker,
Iringottu House, Rajapuram P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: .. )
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in C.C.No.291/12 the opposite party preferred this appeal.
2. The complainant’s son approached the opposite party for an educational loan with relevant documents. The complainant’s son was a student of B.Sc Catering Science in Oriental School of Management, Vythiri, Wayanad affiliated to Calicut University. It is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party turned down the loan application. The educational loan was extended as per the Government of India guidelines to provide financial assistance to students in merit list for higher education. The opposite party bank insisted for a guarantor for the loan from outside his family. The complainant produced the original title deed of his property as security for the loan. The opposite party was ready to sanction the loan without subsidy. The complainant is a heart patient and had to take loan from his friends for remitting fees for the 1st year. It is also stated in the complaint that loan was sanctioned to some of the students of his College for educational purposes. The complainant was denied of the Scheme of loan which amounts to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is filed for allowing the loan and also for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/-.
3. In the written version filed by the opposite party it is contended that the complainant has not produced the documents for availing the loan. The complainant had not produced Patta of landed property as additional security. The educational loan scheme is to provide need based assistance to meritorious students pursuing higher education. The opposite party had considered all educational loan applications and sanctioned to those who satisfied the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India in merit based selection process. The complainant got admission in management quota. He had not written any Government Entrance Test. The complainant also had not furnished necessary details for processing the loan application under EDUSUM Scheme till date. The complainant had not produced any rank list by Government Authority. The admissions under management quota can be considered under EDUSUM Scheme which requires one guarantor. The complainant approached the Forum with malafide intention to abuse the process of law. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
4. No oral evidence adduced by both parties.
5. The appellant’s counsel submitted that the complainant is a student of catering science in Oriental School of Management and he had not produced any rank list published by the Government. As he had not got admission under merit quota the educational loan can be given on production of surety who is outside from his family. The educational loan is meant to provide financial assistance for students in merit list for higher education. The appellant is allowing the education loan scheme adopted by the Indian Banks Association. As per the scheme merit is the sole criteria for eligibility to get the education loan. The opposite party had formulated educational loan scheme as Vitjan Prathan Scheme. This education loan will not be considered for students secured admission in management quota. The interest subsidy is available only for education loans coming under IBA Scheme. The other loan scheme called EDUSUM is intended for students who secured admission in management quota. The interest subsidy is not available for the students who opt this scheme and they have to furnish guarantee of a person having sufficient net worth. The respondent had not opted for educational loan under EDUSUM Scheme. The complainant’s son secured admission under management quota thereby he is not entitled to educational loan with interest subsidy. It is opened to the complainant’s son to avail EDUSUM Scheme by furnishing guarantor having sufficient net worth for which the respondent had not opted. While processing educational loan the appellants are required to comply the directives and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The District Forum on a mis-appreciation of facts directed the appellant to provide educational loan which is not sustainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the order of the District Forum is to set-aside.
6. Though notice was served on the respondent the respondent remained absent.
7. After hearing the appellant’s counsel we have gone through the entire records. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant’s son applied for education loan from the opposite party which was not entertained on the ground that the complainant’s son got admitted to the College under management quota. The complainant produced all the documents as instructed by the appellant. It is true that the complainant hails from a poor family and his father is a heart patient. We are not concerned with his personal affairs. The document pertaining to the complainant’s son issued by the Principal of Oriental College of Hotel Management, it is stated that the entire B.Sc Hotel Management & Catering Scheme (BSc HM & CS) admission is purely on merit basis and based on qualifying examination that is Plus 2 of Kerala Education Board. The complainant’s son was admitted to 1st year BSc Hotel Management, a three year degree course affiliated to the Calicut University. It is also stated that the admission given to the complainant’s son is purely on merit basis and the merit list was prepared on the basis of Plus 2 and submitted to the University as per the regulations of the Calicut University. There is no requirement for Entrance Examination for BSc Hotel Management Course and admission is accordingly on merit based rank list. Considering the fact that the complainant’s son got admission on merit basis the criteria mentioned by the appellant has fulfilled and is eligible for getting the educational loan under the Vitjan Prathan Scheme. The act of the appellant amounts to deficiency in service without considering the letter issued by the Principal of the College.
7. In this circumstance, we are of the considered view that the appellant/opposite party is to allow the educational loan scheme under Vitjan Prathan Scheme for the complainant’s son with interest
subsidy. It is pertinent to point out that there is no Entrance Examination for the BSc Hotel Management Course and the admission is on merit basis as per the Plus 2 marks. So the denial of an educational loan curtailing the future prospects of a student amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum directing the opposite parties to provide educational loan to the complainant’s son.
In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below. The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of the copy of the order.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Forum along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sa.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.236/13
JUDGMENT DATED 30/10/2013
sa
