1.                     The brief facts of the case of the case of the complainant are that for higher studies of the complainant i.e. MBA in Agribusiness under Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, the OP.1  advanced education loan of Rs.2.00 lacs in favour of the complainant on 13.4.2007 but only released Rs.1, 29,000/- against the sanction limit.  It is submitted that as per conditions of loan agreement, the interest rate was at 10.5% i.e. 2% below the bank’s prime lending rate with further rebate of 1% for girl students.  Hence the bank was to charge 9.5% interest p.a. in case of the complainant with ½ yearly rests.  It is further submitted that the OP.1 is charging interest above 14% which is 4.5% more than the agreed rate of interest but in spite of several approach the OP without considering the grievance, is in habit of issuing notices on the complainant.  It is further submitted that the complainant wrote to OP.1 on 12.6.16 stating that she has already paid the principal amount of Rs.1, 29, 000/- and could not pay the interest part as the same is in dispute and also cited the Govt. Of India scheme providing relief on interest on the educational loan availed before 31.3.2007.  The OP.1 on 16.6.2016 replied that her matter has been taken up with their controlling authority but without intimating any further development, the OP is adopting a wrong way.  The complainant further submitted that the OP.1 vide its letter No.477 dt.07.09.2017 has intimated her that they have decided to claim interest subsidy from the Govt. of India for the year, 2016-17 ignoring the previous year’s i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.  Now the OP.1 has issued notice dt.10.5.2017 demanding a sum of Rs.1, 51,220/- as loan outstanding as on 30.5.2016.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.1 to charge interest on the loan amount as per agreement and claim subsidy from GOI and to pay Rs.40, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted the sanction of education loan on 13/4/2007 for Rs.2.00 lacs in favour of the complainant for which her father, K. Rout was co-borrower with repayment started from Sept., 2015 for 84 months @ Rs.3900/- per month.  It is contended that the complainant and her father deliberately defaulted for payment and as on 31.3.2017 a sum of Rs.1, 52,792/- is outstanding.  It is further contended that the father of the complainant had earlier filed C.C. No.131 of 2013 before this Forum regarding this issue and hence the present case will hit the principle of resjudicata.  The earlier case was dismissed and the complainant had filed an appeal No.166 of 2014 before the State Commission which is now subjudiced.  It is also further contended that the complainant and her father are both income tax assessee and hence the complainant is not entitled to get loan subsidy as prescribed by MOHRD and the scheme covers the loan disbursed for the academic year 2009-10 and the interest accrued thereon up to 31.3.2010.  With these and other contentions denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant had taken loan from the OP.1 in which the OP.2 is not a privy and hence the OP is neither a proper nor a necessary party to this case.  It is contended that the OP.2 has not rendered any service to the complainant and as such question of deficiency in service on the part of OP.2 does not arise.  As the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and no financial service in connection with banking and finance has been provided to the complainant by this OP, the allegations made against the OP is outside the scope of CP Act.  It is further contended that the complainant has neither approached Banking Ombudsman nor to the RBI authorities in this regard and the claim of interest subsidy from Govt. is not justified since the lending bank is required to claim the same from the Govt.  Thus denying any fault on its part the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The OP.1 has filed affidavit.  Heard from the A/R for the complainant and OP.1 and perused the materials on record.

5.                     In this case the education loan availed by the complainant on 13.4.2007 in which her father, Sri K. Rout was co-borrower is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that the OP.1 is charging 4.5% more interest on the loan amount violating the terms of loan agreement.  It is her further case that she has already paid the principal loan amount and is waiting for payment of interest part after due consideration of her grievance by the OP regarding disputed interest.  The OP.1 denying the allegations of the complainant raised preliminary issue stating that present issue in dispute has been raised by the father of the complainant earlier before this Forum vide C.C. No.131/2013 and that case has been decided on 26.2.2014 by this Forum.  The OP.1 further submitted that the father of the complainant has preferred FA No.166/2014 before the State Commission against the order of the Forum in the said case and the matter is subjudiced and hence the present application will hit the principle of resjudicata.  In view of above fact, we are inclined to decide the preliminary issue before going into the order merits of this case.

6.                     It is seen that both the parties have filed copy of order dt.26.2.2014 in C.C. No.131/2013 decided by this Forum.   On careful perusal of of said order it is ascertained that the subject matter of above case was regarding wrong posting of interest by the OP.1 under loan A/c. No.20635644388 dt.13.04.2007 for Rs.2.00 lacs which is the subject matter of present dispute.  It is also seen that under above loan, Sri K. Rout, the father of the complainant was co-borrower.  It is further seen that the said case has been decided by this Forum on 26.2.2014 and being aggrieved with that order the complainant has filed FA No.166/14 before the State Commission.  Whereas the OP.1 stated that the above FA is subjudiced, the complainant has not disclosed about that case.  Therefore, the same matter already come up to this Forum early has been decided and First Appeal is pending against that order.  In view of above facts, a second petition is not maintainble before this Forum and if any order passed in the same matter, it will definitely hit the principle of resjudicata.  Thus the case of the complainant failed.  The case against OP.2 is not maintainable as the complainant has not hired any service from them on due consideration.

7.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)