ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainants U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not paying the entire education loan amount sanctioned to the second complainant and for release of the balance of education loan of Rs.1,03,045/- and to give directions not to cause harm, damage and threat to them and direct OP to co-operate with the complainant No 2, till he gets a job for payment of the loan amount and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

Complainant No.1 is the father of complainant No.2.  Complainant No2 in order to pursue his engineering education in mechanical branch admitted himself to KSM College, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore.  He approached OP for education loan and after scrutiny and examination of the documents, complainant No.2 was sanctioned Rs.2,00,000/-  for the course and released Rs.96,955/- only.  OP failed to release the balance of loan for the reasons best known to it.  Inspite of requesting to release the balance of sanctioned amount, OP did not release the same and hence he had to approach this Commission for redressal.  He had to borrow loan from private persons in order to complete his son’s education by paying heavy interest which has caused him financial loss and mental agony and physical hardship.  Further OP is also demanding them to pay the amount received by them in monthly installment of Rs.3,648/-.

3.      It is further contended that the complainant belongs to Schedule caste and after completing the course, he would get a job and out of the said salary, he would repay the loan amount.  Till then, OP has no right to demand and claim the amount disbursed.  OPs men have caused mental stress to the wife of the complainant by demanding for payment by approaching her in the house and also over phone. They hail from respectable family and have deep roots in the society.  In view of the non-disbursal of the entire education loan amount sanctioned, the same amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.

4.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission through its advocate and filed its version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, vexatious, motivated and ill-advised and liable to dismissed.  It has admitted the sanction of education loan to the complainant No.2’s engineering course and sanctioned Rs.2,00,000/- to complete the course and disbursed Rs.96,955/- on 19.01.2015.  Complainants have executed the terms and conditions of the agreement and further the loan to be disbursed at stages spread across four years of the course and also as and when complainant No.2 is required to pay the tuition fee to the college and to meet other expenses.

5.      It has denied that it failed to release the balance of loan amount as sought by the complainants.  It has contended that at the time of the complainants approaching the bank for education loan, second complainant had already taken admission and he was left with another two years of study at KS school of engineering and management and after the sanction of the loan on 24.12.2014, complainant No.2 did not attend the college properly and discontinued the studies and hence it could not able to disburse the remaining loan amount.  Since complainant No.2 failed to submit the progress report, and also for having attended the college and the examination for which the loan amount was sanctioned, and since he discontinued studies owing to ill-health and deficit attendance to the college OP was unable to disburse the balance of sanctioned loan amount. The second complainant also failed to produce the letter of the college demanding him to pay the tuition fee.  Had the complainant No.2 taken steps to get admit himself to the college and demanded to pay the tuition fee, it would have paid the same to the institution.  Since 2^nd complainant failed to submit the report of having attended the college and the examination and failed in one of the subjects, and discontinued the studies it could not release the amount and it has to release the amount only when the complainant No.2 gets an admission for the next year and that to it has to pay the amount to the institution and not to the complainants.  It has denied each and every allegations made in the complaint and admitted for having demanded the complainants to pay Rs.3,648/- as EMI to clear the loan amount obtained as the holiday period for the loan expired and the repayment period started. Under the above facts and circumstances, denying the allegations of harassment, torture, abuse and disturbing the complainants and demanding the money forcefully and prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

4.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2:             In the Negative

                                                For the following.

REASONS

6.     POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is not in dispute that the complainant No.2 applied for education loan and OP who is bound by the guidelines of the RBI and the Government of India sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant NO.2 to pursue his engineering course in mechanical branch.  The original documents produced by the OP that to in particular the sanction advised to be borrower clearly mentions that the rate of interest is 12.25% and the loan amount is Rs.2,00,000/- to be disbursed in stages as per the requirement/demand directly to the institution /vendors of the books /equipment/instruments/college to the extent possible.  Branch to secure the progress report at regular intervals for the student from the college.  Disbursement pro-rata margin to be observed.  Sanction valid for six months from date of knowledge of terms and conditions by borrowers. The repayment holiday/moratorium is mentioned as course period + 1 year or six months after getting job whichever is earlier.  The repayment schedule is the loan period is 180 months EMI Rs.2,368/-, holiday period 0 months and number of EMI 180 months.  Other several conditions have also been mentioned therein which the complainants have agreed by affixing their signature.   

7.     It is also not in dispute that the complainants were paid Rs.96,955/- towards the tuition fee for the second year of Complainant No.2’s engineering course.  The letter written by the complainant No.2 is produced marked as Ex.R4, wherein complainant No.2 himself has admitted that he discontinued studies for the academic year 2015-16 due to health problem and also had attendance shortage for the above reason. He could not attend the examination and he has to rejoin for the third year engineering in 2016-17 and that he is responsible for the default caused.

8.     It is pertinent to note her that the education loan is given to the needy persons to pursue their education and they have to return the amount after completing the course and after obtaining the job in monthly installments.  When the facts and circumstances are taken into consideration, it is clearly admitted by the complainant No.2 that he failed in one subject, for which, he has submitted his marks sheet.  He did not complete the same and he has not at all sought for release of the money (tuition fee) to the bank to be paid to the college.  It is not made clear as to whether the complainant No.2 has cleared his backlog i.e., one subject which he failed and whether he is eligible to pursue his engineering course in the third year.  In the letter stated above, he has clearly mentioned that he will seek readmission for the academic year 2016-17.  This letter is written on 5.7.2016.  This complaint is filed on 12.12.2018 and even as on date  of adducing his evidence, he has not stated anything and produced document that he has already cleared the backlog and that is ready to seek readmission to the college.  If he had sought for readmission to the college, and the college directed him or the bank to pay the tuition fee, since the complainants have been sanctioned with the education loan, the bank would have paid the said amount.  One of the conditions for payment of the admission fee by the bank is that the same to be paid to the college itself and the same cannot be paid to the complainant, unless he shows that he has paid the amount already to the college.

9.     In view of the complainant No.2 not seeking the admission for the third year, the college in which he was admitted did not raise the demand for the tuition fee for the third year and the denial of the OP to the demand of the complainant for paying the said amount to them, in our opinion is not at all deficiency in service. Hence we answer point No.1 in the Negative and in the result also point No.2 in the Negative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is Dismissed.
2. Complainants to pay the borrowed amount as agreed in monthly installment.
3. Parties to bear their own cost.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 23^rd  Day of OCTOBER 2020)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Loan application form

Ex P2: Copy of the Loan sanction letter dated 24.12.2014

Ex. P3: Letter of Authority to disburse loan

Ex P4: Copy of the letter of the complainant No.2 dated 05.07.2016

Ex P5: Statement of account (2 in Nos.)

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.SARVESH ANAND, Branch Manager

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Loan application given by the complainant

Ex R2: Loan sanction letter

Ex R3: Letter of authority to disburse the loan

Ex R4: Letter by complainant No.2

Ex R5: Account statement (2 Nos.)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT