Orissa

Rayagada

CC/475/2015

Sri Umesh Mishra Junior Clerk - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Panchabati Gramya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 475/ 2015.                                        Date.      20  .2. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Umesh Mishra, Junior Clerk, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle,  Po:Rayagada.    Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                               …….Complainant

Vrs.

The Branch Manager, Utkal Gramya Bank,  At/Po:  Gunupur, Dist: Rayagada.

The Regional  Manager, Utkal Gramya Bank, At/Po:Bolangir, Dist:Bolangir.

.                                                                                                           .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps:- Sri S.Ganapati Rao and Sri V.R.M.Patnaik, Advocates,

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment subsidy amount as per applicability of availed educational  loan bearing educational loan No.TL EDN 12291035929  for the  year 2007-2008.

       On being noticed the O.Ps filed written version through their learned counsel and submitted that the averments of the complainant are highly disputed and challenged and put the same with a strict proof. That  the averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking one and other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  Hence the O.P  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

It is  not disputed  from both the parties  that the complainant  had availed education loan  No.TL EDN 12291035929  for the  year 2007   and sanctioned  in favour of the complainant.  

 

Admittedly  the complainant had availed  an educational loan during the year  2007 from the O.P. and  has been depositing loan premium  regularly  by the complainant.  The higher study loan for M.C.A was sanctioned for  3 years in Gayatri Institute of Computer and Management Studies, Gunupur and disbursed the loan amount  by the bank  as per semester requisition from the  educational institution.

So for the applicability interest subsidy on Education loan shall only  applicable for the students from economically weaker section, who have taken Education loan upto 31.3.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013 studying in recognized Technical and professional courses in India  under Model Education  Loan Scheme, subject to the parental gross income of the student/family  income upto  4.5 lakhs per annum   from the academic year 2009-2010.  An income proof from the competent authority, who are no other than Tahasildar and Additional  Tahasildar  under Format ‘A’  as a certificate of income.  In the instant case in hand the complainant while the outstanding loan was payable from the date of disbursement till the repayment of the loan in full, did not filed  income certificate of his  parents/family from the competent authority envisaging  that their  gross income   up to 4.5 Lakhs per annum.

The  O.P vehemently contended in their written version para No.6  that the complainant had have never been approached the O.P. with  income certificate  to  get    his eligibility for interest subsidy during the pendency of the loan, which the said certificate  is vital document to determine the eligibility for interest subsidy to the  borrowers in general, who  availed education loan for the academic year 2009-2010.

Further the complainant  has made the repayments of loan amount as per the loan agreement without any  further  default both towards principal and interest and his loan liability was remained closed as on 10.1.2014. Again as per circular No. 9 of 2014 Dtd. 22.4.2014 of the Head office of the Utkal Gramya  Bank, Bolangir that no relief is envisaged  or granted  when the loan account is regular   and no interest will be outstanding as on 31.12.2013.

The complainant had and have never been approached  the O.P with such income certificate to get his eligibility for interest subsidy during  the pendency of the loan, which the said certificate is pivotal document to determine the eligibility for interest subsidy to the borrowers in general, who availed education loan for the academic year 2009-2010. Again the complainant being a bonafied customer made the repayments   of loan amount s per the loan agreement without any further  default both towards principal and interest, and his loan liability was remained closed as on Dt. 10.1.2014. The bonafides of the complainant is apparent on the balance statement, which  is highly proves his integrity as a regular loan account holder and in view of such regular payments of loan, no accrued interest was also stood as an outstanding during the  moratorium period. To this pin point, the O.Ps draw the  judicial notice on the advances circular No. 9 of 2014 Dt. 22.4.2014 from Head office, Utkal Grameen bank,Bolangir “that no relief is envisage or granted when the loan account is regular and no interest will be outstanding as on 31.12.2013.  In such event the complainant is not coming within the purview of loan interest subsidy as per the  aforesaid circular with cut off date i.e. 31.12.2013.  The circular under No.9 shall do form in full to this counter for proper adjudication of the dispute, which is now in controversy in between the complainant and O.Ps.

On perusal of the record  this forum observed the complainant without filing income certificate obtaining from the competent authority  he  filed  income returns  obtained from the income Tax Deptt.  for which  the complainant is deprived  of  to get  interest subsidy during the pendency of the loan.

In the present case the complainant is not  entitled to any relief from the O.P.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

                                                            ORDER.

            In resultant the complainant petition is  stands  dismissed on contest on sans merit.  There is no order as to cost and compensation.
 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this            20 th. day of   February, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.