IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/139/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
24.08.17 08.09.17 07.03.19.
Complainant: Mahasis Singha Roy
S/O- Debasis Singha Roy,
Vill- Saktipur PaschimPara,
PO & PS- Saktipur, Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin- 742163
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Sujit Mandal, Branch Manager,
Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank,
Shaktipur Branch
Vill & PO & PS- Shaktipur,
Pin- 742163
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Jagannath Bhattacharya.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : None.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Mahasis Singha Roy (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Sujit Mandal, Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Shaktipur Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant took educational loan from the OP Bank for prosecuting his studies to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- in 2011 and as per terms of the agreement interest shall be as per PBIR/BASC rate of individual Bank and as per rule of the Central Government, a student is entitled to get 100% interest subsidy provided his/her paternal income is up to 4.5 Lakhs per annum. The paternal income of the Complainant is less than 4.5 lakh p.a. and the BDO, Beldanga-II issued income certificate from the year 2011 and onwards. The Complainant got information that the OP Bank was not adjusting the subsidy amount of the accrued interest till 30.06.17. The Complainant repaid a sum of Rs.83,313/- up to 31.07.17 in several installments against the loan amount and the said amount would be adjusted with the principal loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Complainant repeatedly requested the OP to adjust subsidy amount but the OP did not pay any heed to it. The Complainant is entitled to get exemption of payment of interest till the moratorium period i.e. up to 31.07.16. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP not to claim any interest upon the loan amount from the date of disbursement till 31.07.16 and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unnecessary harassment.
The OP did not turn up in spite of service of notice. Hence the case is heard ex-parte.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant took educational loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the OP Bank on 02.09.11 on certain terms and conditions. It is further urged that the OP Bank issued a notice upon the Complainant on 26.09.16 intimating him about the scheme for interest subsidy of educational loan for economical weaker sections and submission of the income certificate from the designated authority of the State Government in favour of the borrowers for the academic year 2005-2016 and the Complainant has submitted income certificate issued by the BDO and an agreement in connection with interest subsidy for education loan for economical weaker sections in spite of submission of his income certificate issued by the designated authority of the State Government.
The Central scheme for interest subsidy has been announced by the ministry of HRD for providing interest on education loan for technical and professional courses for studies in India under the IBA model educational loan scheme for students from economically weaker sections with annual gross parental/family income up to Rs.4.5 Lakh per annum from the academic year 2009-2010. The Central Government has issued guidelines about issuance of income certificate. The ministry of HRD Government of India has issued an advisory to all the State Governments requesting them to designate appropriate authority or authorities who are competent to issue income certificates, based on economic index and not social background for the purpose of this scheme.
Banks are to implement the scheme based on the notification of the certification authority by State Government communicated through District level Consultative Committees.
The DLCCs will give the list and the signatures of the competent authority to issue the income certificate and the scheme shall be implemented through Canara Bank, which is the nodal Bank for the ministry of Human Resources Development. The disbursement of the interest subsidy claims of the Banks shall be on half yearly or yearly basis which has to be worked out in consultation with the ministry of HRD.
In the present case the Complainant alleged that the O.P. is responsible for non-disbursement of subsidy amount. On going through the scheme for interest subsidy of educational loan for economically weaker sections, we find that the disbursement of subsidy amount is in the hands of ministry of HRD Government of India and the Nodal Bank is Canara Bank.
The Complainant has not made any allegations against the ministry of HRD or the Nodal Bank for non-disbursement of subsidy amount. On the other hand, it appears from the xerox copy of the pass book of loan account of the Complainant that a sum of Rs.42,357/- was credited in the loan account of the Complainant as part subsidy from 25.10.17 to 12.09.18.
Therefore, it is clear that the OP Bank released part interest subsidy of educational loan in favour of the Complainant. It is the allegation of the Complainant that the Complainant and his father submitted a letter dated 19.12.16 requesting the OP to let them know about the outstanding amount by adjusting the interest subsidy amount but the OP Bank did not respond to the said notice.
The OP Bank did not contest the case in spite of service of notice upon him. The OP Bank is duty bound to let the Complainant know about the fate of adjustment of interest subsidy and the total outstanding dues. As the OP did not respond to the notice dated 19.12.16 we think that the OP has deficiency in service. The O.P. can not be held liable for non disbursement of interest subsidy as it is in the hand of Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India and Canara Bank is the Nodal Bank for implementation of the Scheme.
We think that the OP may be directed to inform the Complainant about his total outstanding dues and adjustment of his interest subsidy by thirty days from the date of this order. We also think that the Complainant is entitled to get litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/- for deficiency in service.
Both the points are thus disposed of.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 24.08.17 and admitted on 08.09.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/139/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed exparte against the OP with cost of Rs.1,000/- .
The OP is directed to inform the Complainant about his total outstanding dues and adjustment of his interest subsidy by thirty days from the date of this order.
The OP is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/- for deficiency in service to the Complainant by thirty days from this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
