Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/42/2018

Amaresh Karakappa S.Reddy S/o K.Srikantha reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The barnch Manager,Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank - Opp.Party(s)

G.E.Sowbhagyalakshmi

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28/04/2018

DISPOSED      ON:21/12/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:42/2018

 

DATED: 28^th DECEMBER 2018

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

……COMPLAINANT/S	Amaresh Karakappa S.Reddy S/o K.Srikantha Reddy, Student, Represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder Srikantha Reddy S/o Late K.Karakappa, Aged about 55 years,Agriculturist, R/o: Rampura Village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga Dist.   (Rep by Sri.G.E. Sowbhagyalakshmi, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Rampura Branch,Molkalmuru Tq, Chitradurga Dist.,   2. The Branch Manager, Pragathi krishna Gramina Bank, Head Office, Sangakanal Road, Gandhinagar, Bellary.   3. The Visa Officer, Emabassy of Ireland, C-17,Malcha Marg, Chankyapuri, Newdelhi-110021.   (Rep by Sri.A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate for OP No.1 and 2 and OP No.3 ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.4,50,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, complainant with an intention of higher studies in abroad has applied for approval of seat for pursuing 12 months master degree in MSc., (CS) course at University College, Dublin and after confirmation of seat, he approached OP No.1 to avail educational loan of Rs.18,00,000/-.  After doing all the formalities and security deposit, the OP No.1 forwarded the file to OP No.2.  The OP No.2 after verifying all the documents and records have sanctioned educational loan to the complainant by name Amaresh Kalakappa S. Reddy for Rs.18,00,000/- on 23.05.2016.  After sanctioning the loan, the complainant approached OP No.3 for issuance of Visa.  The OP No.3 has collected all the necessary documents from the complainant.  After lapse of three months, the OP No.3 has sent a letter to the complainant on 10.08.2016 stating that, the Visa has been refused by the Irish Naturalization and Immigration Services wherein it is stated that, many attempts have been made to contact the Bank to verify the educational loan, the numbers on the loan sanction letter match those online but it is not possible to get through to any of the numbers, it has not possible to verify the bank loan.  After receiving the letter from the OP No.3, the complainant immediately approached OP No.1 and 2 and on enquiry, the OP No.1 and 2 informed the complainant that, the loan has been sanctioned. The said fact has been informed to OP No.3.  The OP No.3 after perusing the records, once again has upheld the previous order and informed the same through letter dated 04.10.2016.  After receipt of the letter, the complainant has approached the OPs several time and requested for reconsideration of the further process, but the OPs have drag on the matter on one or the other pretext and till this day, the matter has not been resolved.  After receipt of the letter of OP No.3 it came to know that, the OP No.1 and 2 are unable to perform their part of contract and they have not given information to OP No.3 with regard to sanction of educational loan to the complainant.  The OP No.1 and 2 have failed to perform their part of contract and the OP No.3 is unable to collect detail information with regard to sanction of educational loan to the complainant from OP No.1 and 2.  Further the OP No.3 failed to reconsider the request of the complainant from the acts of the OP No.1 to 3, the complainant has lost his golden opportunity, this act of the OPs leads to deficiency of service.  Further it is submitted that, complainant with great efforts and difficulties has succeeded in obtaining the seat at University College, Dublin, Ireland.  The said college is the best college for 12 months in Master Degree in MSc., (C.S).  From the acts of the OPs, the complainant has suffered lot and lost his seat in University College, Dublin, Ireland.  With no other alternative, the complainant after facing several problems has got admission and continued his studies in Canada by obtaining hand loan from his relatives and best wishers.  The complainant has cleared the loan obtained from the OP No.1 and 2 on 31.03.2017.  Because of the acts of OPs, the complainant has lost the best opportunity and sustained heavy loss and suffered from mental shock, pain and agony and the same cannot be compensated by any means.  The complainant has got issued legal notice on 08.02.2018 through RPAD to OP No.1 to 3, the same has been duly served to the OP No.1 and 2 on 09.02.2018 and 21.02.2018 respectively.  Even after service of the notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have not replied till this day or they have not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant and drag on the matter on one or the other pretext without the considering the request of the complainant.  The act of non consideration of request of complainant clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Even after service of the notice, the complainant has approached the OPs several times, but no fruitful result has been obtained by complainant from the OPs, which caused heavy loss and irreparable loss and injustice will be caused to the complainant.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on the date of sanction of educational loan for abroad studies i.e., on 23.05.2016 and further on refusal of Visa by OP No.3 on 10.08.2016 and 14.10.2016 for non receipt of full information with regard to sanction of educational loan for abroad studies in favour of complainant and further on the date of issuance of legal notice i.e., on 08.02.2018, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prays for allow the complaint.

3.      On service of notice, OP No.1 and2 appeared through Sri.A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate and filed version.  Notice has been served to OP No.3, but OP No.3 did not appear before this Forum and hence, placed ex-parte.

The version of OP No.1 and 2 is that, they are the financial institutions and sanctioned educational loan to complainant for higher studies.  There is a relationship with complainant and OP No.1 and 2 and not with OP No.3.  OP No.3 is a different institution and no way concerned to OP No.1 and 2.  OP No.3 is a stranger.  The relationship is between complainant and OP No.1 with regard to the educational loan of the complainant who asked educational loan for higher studies.  Further it is submitted that, on the basis of fee structures filed by the complainant with OP No.1 Bank and the OP No.1 Bank has forwarded his application to OP No.2 for sanction of the educational loan to the complainant on 23.05.2016.  As per sanction memorandum dated 23.05.2016, the educational loan of Rs.18,00,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant has issued loan sanctioned memorandum of Rs.18,00,000/- and Bank S.B A/c pass sheet and pass book to complainant and issued letter dated 16.06.2016 conforming about the loan sanctioned to the complainant for Rs.18,00,000/-.  After that, the complainant has withdrawn the sanctioned amount from OP No.1 Bank in different stages and for this OP No.1 issued letter dated 16.06.2016 stating about the disbursement of Rs.11,30,000/- towards the tuition fee deposited credited to IBAN – IE82 BOFI-9000 1720611511 with SIFT code/BIC, BOFIIE2D, the name of the University is University College, Dublin, Ireland.  He has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the educational loan and balance loan amount of Rs.6,70,000/- is ready for disbursement on submission of Visa.  Further it is submitted that, the complainant has produced before the OP No.1 Bank of Ireland real time credit notification dated 14.06.2016 and receipt relating to payment of tuition fee and other fee.  The remaining allegations made in para 2 to 6 of the complaint are not known to the OP No.1 and 2.  Further the complainant has availed the educational loan on 04.06.2016 of Rs.18,00,000/- and he has closed the entire loan amount on 31.03.2017.  Further the OP No.1 and 2 have not received any calls from Immigration authority nor received any letter about confirmation about the loan sanctioned to the complainant.  Further it is stated that, there is no direct relationship between OP No.1 and 2 with OP No.3.  There is a relationship only with complainant.  The OP No.1 Bank has issued education loan sanction letter to the complainant for Rs.18,00,000/-, thereafter the complainant has withdrawn the above said amount on different dates and there is no written correspondence between OP No.3 and OP No.1 at any point of time with regard to the educational loan sanctioned to the complainant.  The OP No.1 and 2 have not at all received any letter from OP No.3.  The OP No.1 and 2 are not a consumer with OP No.3.  Hence, there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 and prays for dismissal of the complaint.            

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-8 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OP No.1 and 2, one Sri. G. Veerabhadrappa, the Manager and P.A Holder of PKGB, Rampura has examined as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-5 and closed their side.

 

 

5.      Arguments heard.

 

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP No.1 and 2 have not given any information to OP No.3 for sanction of education loan to him for higher studies, because of non giving information, the complainant has put to great loss and injury and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

 

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- Negative. 

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.      The case of the complainant is that, complainant has applied for higher education loan from the OP No.1 bank for Rs.18,00,000/-.  The OP No.1 Bank has send all the records to OP No.2 for sanction of loan.  The OP No.2 after verification of all the records, sanctioned loan of Rs.18,00,000/- to the complainant for his higher education on 23.05.2016.  After that, the complainant has given his college address to the OP No.1 to send the fee.  Accordingly, the OP No.1 has send an amount of Rs.11,30,000/- to the complainant’s college on 16.06.2016, the remaining amount of Rs.6,70,000/- is with the SB A/c of the complainant.  The main contention of the complainant is that, OP No.3 has send the letter to the OP No.1 asking whether the higher education loan of the complainant has been sanctioned in your Bank or not.  But the OP has filed the version and taken a contention that, the OP No.3 has not at all written a letter with regard to sanction of loan to the complainant for his higher education.  Further the complainant has taken a main contention that, non giving of the information to the OP No.3 by the OP No.1, the complainant has put to great loss and irreparable injury.  As per the documents produced by both the sides, it clearly shows that the OP No.1 has sanctioned the higher education loan to the complainant for Rs.18,00,000/- on 23.05.2016.  Accordingly, the complainant has given a letter to the OP No.1 for sending of the fee of Rs.11,30,000/- to his college towards tuition fee.  The complainant has failed to produce any documents to show that OP No.3 has written a letter to OP No.1 and asking as to whether the higher education loan has been sanctioned to the complainant.  Here the case on hand is that, it clearly shows that, the complainant has given letter to the OP No.1 to send a tuition fee of Rs.11,30,000/-.  The question of receiving any letter from OP No.3 does not arise because, the complainant has got power to submit all the necessary documents to the OP No.3.  The complainant has failed to produce the necessary documents to OP No.3 to obtain Visa.  Once the complainant has received loan amount from OP No.1, it is his duty to inform the same to OP No.3.  Hence, the OP No.3 is no way concerned to the OP No.1, it is the duty of the complainant to give information to OP No.3 with regard to obtain of loan from OP No.1.

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the sides.  No doubt the complainant has approached the OP No.1 seeking sanction of higher education loan.  Accordingly, the OP No.1 has sent all the documents to the OP No.2 for sanction of higher education loan to the complainant.  The OP No.2 has verified all the necessary documents sent by the OP No.1 and sanctioned a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- to the complainant for his higher education.  The complainant has given letter to the OP No.1 to sent education fee to his college of Rs.11,30,000/-.  Accordingly, the OP No.1 has disbursed the said amount to his college.  The complainant knows very well that the loan has been already sanctioned by the OP No.1 and 2.  It is his duty to inform the same to OP No.3 or to OP No.1 and 2.  Therefore, the complainant himself has committed negligence and OP No.1 and 2 have not committed any deficiency of service.  Moreover, the complainant has cleared the entire loan amount obtained from the OP No.1 and 2 on 31.03.2017 and now the complainant is studying in Canada, the question of sanctioning compensation to the complainant does not arise because the complainant himself has committed a negligence in informing about sanction of the loan by the OP No.1 and 2.  complainant is entitled for receiving the documents from the OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

 

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 21/12/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

                                     

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. G. Veerabhadrappa, the Manager and P.A Holder of PKGB by way of affidavit evidence

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	GPA
02	Ex-A-2:-	Loan Sanction memorandum
03	Ex-A-3:-	Refusal letter dated 10.08.2016
04	Ex-A-4:-	Further refusal letter dated 04.10.2016
05	Ex-A-5:-	Loan clearance letter dated 27.10.2017
06	Ex-A-6:-	Legal notice dated 08.02.2018
07	Ex.A-7:-	Three postal receipts
08	Ex.A-8:-	Two postal acknowledgements

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 16.06.2016
02	Ex-B-2:-	Receipt dated 28.06.2016
03	Ex-B-3:-	Notification dated 14.06.2016
04	Ex-B-4:-	Loan sanction memorandum dated 23.05.2016
05	Ex-B-5:-	Bank Loan Pass Sheet

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**