JUDGMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant named above alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of ops for misrepresentation & charging of higher rate of interest  promised over educational loan advanced to the complainant.
2. The complainant seeks for the following reliefs:- (i) to hold that the Ops are liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant,(ii) to direct the Ops to apply Kalinga Sikhay Sathi Yojana (KSSY) or Vidya Lakshmi Scheme against the education loan sanctioned to the complainant vide account number 3985778386,(iii) to direct the OPS to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of mental harassment & agony,(iv) to direct the      Ops to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards advocate fees & cost of this litigation,(v) to direct the Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards exemplary cost for their inaction, and (vi) to pass any other relief(s)as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit & proper in the interest of justice & good conscience.
3.    The facts of the complaint in brief are that:- due to financial constraint the complainant, during the 2^nd week of march 2017,  visited the op/ bank in search of an education loan with low interest and greater benefits. One of the agent of O.P No.3 convinced the complainant to visit to the office of the OP No.3 and he further assured that, he will be provided education loan with greater benefits and hassle free process. On being entrapped by the tempted scheme of the agent of OP3 on 22.03.2027 , the  complainant  visit to the office of O.P No.3 to make an inquiry about their education loan policy, where the O.P No.3 showed him some printed brochure for their education loan . One is Kalinga Sikhya Sathi Yojana (KSSY) with only 1% of interest on the sanctioned amount. The O.P 3 further confirmed that , EMI shall start after 3 years (36 Months) of the loan sanctioning date. After being satisfied with the assurance  of the O.P NO.3 the complainant applied for education loan worth Rs.5,05,000/- Five lakh Five thousand only on the  same day i.e. 23.03.2017 but the loan amount sanctioned was of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lakh) only  vide  loan account No.3985778986. At that, time the O.P No.3 obtain some blank signed cheque form the complainant. .Thereafter the O.P No.3 put some cross mark in some documents which is not known to the complainant and on being asked by the complainant and his mother, as guarantor, put their signatures on the printed form with a blind trust upon the Op 3 /B.M of the bank. It is alleged that, the Op 3  falsely  represented that, he was  helping the complaint  by sanctioning education loan @1% interest as per the aforesaid government scheme. It is specifically mentioned that, the documents, where they asked to put the signature were blank and no details such as names, account numbers, guarantors’ details, loan details, date etc were mentioned there but in good faith the complainant along with his mother have put their signature solely having a trust upon the OP3.   On 14.08.2019 when the complainant visited to the office of the O.P No.3 and requested for his EMIs details with an intention to start repayment of loan EMI on regular interval to save his credit score got surprised to know that interest @10.50% is levied  on his educational loan there under Cent Vidyuarthi Scheme instead of 1 % under Kalinga Sikhya Sathi Yojana(KSSY) or Vidya Lakshmi Schme as promised by the OP3 at the time of sanction of loan. On being asked the O.P No.3 expressed his helplessness and refused to entertain the grievance of the complainant stating that, subject loan had been sanctioned under Cent Vidhyarthi Scheme by the previous Branch Manager and he has no role to play. The complainant alleged that, there is Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in rending fair service to the consumer/complainant , which demand strict action against the Ops and complete adjudication in the interest of consumer. O.P No.1 and 2 being the corporate head and regional head respectively are also equally responsible for the inaction of O.P No.3.That, cause action for this complaint arose on 14.08.2019 , when the complainant for the first time  came to know that, he has been unlawfully levied with 10.50% of interest on his education loan instead of 1% under the government scheme as promised by the         OP3 at the time of sanctioning of loan. Hence this complaint.
4. The complainant to substantiate his contention has relayed on the following documents :- (i) Copy of loan sanction letter handed over to the complainant by  the O.P No.3 on 14.08.2019.The averments of the complaint petition is supported by an affidavit of the complainant.
5. On being notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri P.Sahany and filed their written version denying the complaint allegation in all respect and asked the complainant to strict proof to the allegation made against the Ops by cogent & documentary evidence. However, admitted the facts that, the complainant has availed educational loan. It is contended that, there is no such Agent provision at the Central Bank of India Bhawanipatna Branch /O.P No.3 to promote & distribute advertisement to provide Education loan and it is further submitted that, the O.P No.3 has never assured the complainant that,  the loan proposal shall be charged only 1 % (one percent)of interest and the balance interest shall be borne by the Government. It is submitted further submitted that, the complainant and his mother are highly educated person and both of them have individually read over the contents of the Agreement and other necessary loan documents and on being satisfied they have put their signature freely on the loan Agreement. It is further submitted that, the O.P No.3 has never asked the complainant or to  the Co-Borrower to put their signature on blank documents at any point of time assuring loan @ 1% interest P.A over the sanction loan. It is further submitted that, the complainant submitted his loan application form and request for a loan of Rs.400000/- (Four Lakh) only under CENT VIDYARTHI SCHEME for the purpose his Higher Education (MBA) on dated 22.03.207 being signed by Biswaranjan  Mishra and Joint Applicant Jyortimayee Tripathy. And after receiving of said loan application the O.P No3 issued  sanction advice to the borrower/complainant on dated 23.03.2017 on the terms & condition as mentioned in the sanctioned letter in which the interest rate has been clearly mentioned in para 13 of the sanction letter i.e interest rate : (MCLR) + 2.00 (spread) = 10.50 % (floating rate) * (at present MCLR is 8.50) and after read over the contents and find it to be true both Jyormayee Tripathy and Biswaranjan Mishra have duly signed on the sanction letter. And that, the complainant and Co-borrower agreed that, said loan shall be governed by the term & condition contained herein as well as in the said Cent Vidyarthi Scheme for Education Loan. It is further submitted that, an ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT MADE on dated 23.03.2017 executed between the complainant, co borrower and with the Ops where in it has been mentioned that, the Borrower shall jointly & severally be liable to repay loan with interest, cost, charges etc to  the bank  as mentioned in the agreement in para 4 and both have signed on the agreement. It is  further submitted that, the complainant has violate the term & condition of the loan  agreement and not informing the O.Ps about his employment , income and his profession after completion of his studies and that, the present case is the outcome of the Ops refusal to complainants request to enhance the loan amount. And for which the complainant foisted this false case against the O.Ps making false allegation and that ,there is no cause of action and that, this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and for non-joinder of necessary parties the case should be dismissed with cost .It is further submitted that, the Bank O.P has never informed the complainant for the closer of his Education loan. It is completely baseless and false allegation and that, the complainant himself is a Bank employee and he must be aware that, Credit Score cannot be negatively impacted by lending Bank if the borrower is repaying EMI regularly and that, there is no signature of the complainant in the memo filed on dated 24.08.2022 by the advocate of the complainant and hence the memo is misconceived, not maintainable in the eyes of law. And that, there is no signature of the complainant in the memo filed on dated 27.08.2022 by the advocate of the complainant and hence the memo is misconceived, not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted further that, while the complainant has been pending for trail the petitioner closed the entire loan amount without the knowledge of the esteem court and for which the present case is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed with cost.
6. The Ops to substantiate their averments has relied and filed the following documents having signed by the complainant such as Loan Application Form Part-1 , Part-II Cent Vidyarthi ,Sanction Advise to the borrowers, dated 23.03.2017 , Letter of interest variation and Agreement for Education loan , dated 23.03.2017 for your kind perusal Commission.
7. Section 38(6) of C.P.Act, 2019 casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide a complaint on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider, irrespective of whether the service provider adduced evidence or not the decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. Thus, onus through is on the complainant making allegation
8. Both the parties have participated in the hearing of this complaint and filed their evidence on affidavit to prove their respective contentions.
9. The complainant has filed his additional evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019, the averment of which are corroborating with the averment of the complainant petition .
10. Heard. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learn counsel of the parties present.
11. During hearing of the complaint the Ops through their learned counsel vide his petition dt. 9/11/2023 prayed to allow him for cross examination of the complaint upon which no objection is filed by the complainant side and on being heard to the learned counsel present from the both side this Commission vide order dt. 07/12/2023 has allowed the prayer of the Ops with a direction to the complainant to present physically before the Commission on 04/01/24 for his cross examination by the Ops but the complainant has deliberately remain absent for his cross examination on the date fixed though availed many adjournment and killed  valuable time of this commission. The evidence affidavit of the complainant without facing cross examination of the Ops as directed by this commission shall not be considered. The averment of the complainant shall not be accepted as proved. Rather, this acts of the complainant has clearly proved his disobedience & disregard to the Commission.
12. The Ops have filed additional affidavit evidence of one Jitendra Panda, the Branch Manager Central Bank of India , ,the averment of which are corroborating with the averment of their written version remain un rebutted 
13. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the both the parties and have examined the record. It is proved on affidavit evidence of one Jitendra Panda ,the Branch Manager Central Bank of India  that , the complainant has availed loan of Rs . 4,00,000/- from the Op 3/Bank for his higher study and has already repaid the same with interest .
14. The complainant has failed to proved his allegation that, the Ops have levied interest @10.50% over educational loan there under Cent Vidyuarthi Scheme instead of 1 % under Kalinga Sikhya Sathi Yojana(KSSY) or vidya Lakshmi scheme as promised by the OP3 at the time of sanction of loan.
15. The Ops to substantiate their averments has relied and filed the following documents having signed by the complainant such as Loan Application Form Part-1 , Part-II Cent Vidyarthi ,Sanction Advise to the borrowers, dated 23.03.2017 , Letter of interest variation and Agreement for Education loan , dated 23.03.2017 for y kind perusal of this Commission remain undisputed .
16. The undisputed document relied by the complainant himself i.e the loan sanction latter dt. 23/03/2017 placed on the record by the complainant himself contained the signature of both complainant/borrower Biswaranjan Mishra & Co-borrower written in English so also the complainant himself admitted the facts that, he has availed subject loan for his higher study clearly proved that, both the borrower & co-borrower are  well educated person and well awarded of the terms & condition of the subject term loan of Rs .4,00,000/-  sanctioned to them under CENT VIDYARTHY SCHEME for higher study/MBA of borrower Biswaranjan Mishra repayable in 120 month with EMIs @ 8475/-(holiday period:-36 month) ,Number of  EMIs (excluding holiday period):- 84 month, the interest rate has been clearly mentioned in para 13 of said  sanction letter :- interest rate : (MCLR) + 2.00 (spread) = 10.50 % (floating rate) * (at present MCLR is 8.50).
17. Nothing cogent material placed on record  to hold that, the complainant, for the first time on 14.08.2019 has received  the loan sanction latter dt. 23/03/2017 & came to know that, he has been unlawfully levied with 10.50% of interest on his education loan instead of 1% under the government scheme as promised by the      OP3 at the time of sanctioning of loan.
18. The “NO DUE CERTIFICATE (NOC) issued by the OP 3/Bank on dt. 20/02/2022 placed on the record by the complainant clearly proved that, the complainant has already paid the subject  loan with interest & other dues to the OP/Bank.
19. Nothing cogent material is available on record to hold that the OP3/Bank has ever misrepresented any facts to the complainant at the time of sanction of subject loan.
20. Nothing evidence adduced by the complainant to hold that, the ops have ever made undue pressure or threatened the complainant to damage his credit score and coming under such pressure the complainant has repaid the entire loan to avail the subject “NDC” from the Op 3/Bank .
21. Nothing cogent evidence is adduced by the complainant to hold that, the Ops/Bank has ever played unfair trade practice or deficient services towards the complainant results any injuries to him. .
22.  Based on the above discussion we are of the opinion that , this complaint has no merits rather it is found that, complainant is not in clean hand has killed the valuable time of this Commission as such complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence it is order.

O R D E R

This complaint has no merits .Hence dismissed against the Ops on contest. However,  no order as to cost.

  Dictated & corrected by me.

             Sd/-

           President.      

                          I agree.

                                                  Sd/-

                                                Member.

  Pronounced in open forum today on this 15^th  day of  May 2024  under the seal and signature of this Commission .

 The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.  Complaint could not be decided due to COVID-19 situation and in want of quorum of this commission.

 Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.