Date of Filing: 10.07.2015 Date of Final Order: 24.08.2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application under Section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
The facts of the Complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant one Arnab Dutta took Education Loan from the OP No 1 being Loan Account No.548106550000008 and the Proforma OP No.1 Akhilesh Dutta, father of the Complainant was the Guarantor of the said loan. The said Proforma OP No.1 has a salary Account No.548102010009593 with the OP No. 1. It is the version of the Complainant that the OPs disbursed Rs.1,76,400/- only and harassed the Complainant and the Proforma OP No.1 in various ways. The OP No.1 issued a cheque amounting to Rs.21,500/- on 30.12.2009 but from the Statement of Account furnished by the OP No.1, it reveals that an amount of Rs.28,500/- was disbursed on 30.12.09 which is nothing but deficiency in service. Ultimately, the OP No.1 blocked the Salary Account of the Proforma Op No.1 and the Ops did not disburse the total amount of loan and subsidy amount to the Complainant. The Proforma OP No.1 sought some information under the RTI Act regarding the entitlement of subsidy amount and whether subsidy amount has been adjusted with the said Education Loan Account etc. The replies to the said information and other correspondences have been annexed with the complaint. The Complainant already paid Rs.63,344/- in connection with the Loan Account. He prays for passing an order as regards his entitlement of Rs.52,800/- as subsidy, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- for illegal trade practice.
The OP No.1 received the Notice on 06.08.2015 and appeared through its Agent on 20.08.2015. The OP No.1 and 2 filed w/v on 26.04.2016 denying all material allegations contending inter-alia that the Complaint is not maintainable and it is bad for defect of parties. The complaint is barred by law of limitation and this case does not fall within the purview of the C.P. Act and there is no negligence and unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. According to the version of the Ops, the Complainant and Proforma OP No.1, father of the Complainant, applied for Education Loan on 27.10.2009 and after inspection, the Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- and disbursed an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- and Rs.14,367/- towards Insurance of the loan. The OP No.1 disbursed the said loan amount through Demand Draft. It is the version of the Ops that on 30.12.2009, two Demand Drafts being No.192371 amounting to Rs.21,500/- and No.00844 amounting to Rs.7,000/- were issued. The Complainant is entitled to get Rs.78,663/- as subsidy but Rs.20,156.82 has yet been disbursed due to non-availability of the rest subsidy amount from the Government and the Bank will credit the rest subsidy amount to A/C of the Complainant as soon as it will be received by them. The Ops pray for dismissal of the complaint with sufficient cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Is the case barred by law of limitation?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1, 2 & 3.
All the above three points are taken together for the sake of convenience.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer of the Ops and this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In reply, the Ld. Agent for the Ops raised no objection.
On a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant is a consumer u/s 2(d) of the CP Act, 1986 and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant further submits that this case has been filed within the period of limitation and the cause of action arose in 2015 when the Ops refused to entertain the claim of the Complainant. The Ld. Agent for the Ops has not argued on this point. After going through the materials on record, we find that this case is not barred by law of limitations as per Section 24A of the CP Act, 1986.
Point No.4 & 5.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submits that the Complainant took Education Loan from the OP No.1 being Loan Account No.58106550000008 and the Proforma OP No.1 Akhilesh Dutta, father of the Complainant, was the Guarantor of the said loan and he has a Salary Account with the OP No.1/Union Bank being Account No.548102010009593. It is argued that the OP No.1 disbursed Rs.1,76,400/- as per Statement of Account, though cheque was issued amounting to Rs.21,500/- on 30.12.2009 in lieu of Rs.28,500/- as shown in the Statement of Account. He further says that the OPs blocked the salary Account of the Proforma OP No.1 in spite of depositing the EMI of the Education Loan by the Complainant. He argues that the calculation of EMI has been challenged by the Complainant but no positive reply has been received from the side of the OPs. It is contended that the report received from the Office of the CPIO of Union Bank reveals that salary Account of the Proforma OP No.1 was blocked on 30.12.2014. He further contends that the OPs have no authority to block the Salary Account of the Proforma OP No.1 without assigning any reason and the wrong calculation of EMI, blockage of salary Account of Proforma OP No.1 and non-disbursement of subsidy amount are nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.78,663/- as subsidy amount as per certificate of Union Bank issued on 02.11.2016 (document filed by the OPs) but the total subsidy amount has not been disbursed to the Account of the Complainant. He contends that the Complainant may be compensated with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- for unfair Trade Practice.
In reply, Ld. Agent for the OP submits that the claim of the Complainant is totally false and baseless and it does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986 as there is no negligence/deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. It is submitted that the Complainant has vexatious claim and the claim petition has been filed with a view to harass the Ops. He submits that the Education Loan amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- was sanctioned on 27.10.2009 (Annexure B at page 53). It is urged that Rs.1,76,400/- was already disbursed to the Loan Account of the Complainant and an amount of Rs.14,367/- was taken for the purpose of Insurance of the Education Loan as per application of the Complainant (Annexure F to J at page 57 to 61). He further argues that the Complainant is aware of the fact that Rs.21,500/- was disbursed through Demand Draft in favour of Sanaka Educational Trust in connection with the tuition fees etc. and Rs.7,000/- through Payment Order duly signed by the Complainant on 31.12.2009 (Annexure A &D at page 8 &55). It is submitted that the Complainant also submitted Tax Invoice for purchase of one Printer from Infobyte Systems on payment of Rs.7,000/-duly signed by him(Annexure E at page 56). It is said that the Complainant is negligent to make repayment of regular EMI and the Proforma OP No.1 being the Guarantor of the loan is liable to repay the loan amount. He further contends that out of subsidy amount of Rs.78,663/- (Annex. T at page 95), an amount of Rs.20,156.82 was disbursed to the Loan Account of the Complainant on 16.01.16 (Annexure 11 at page 45 & Anne. At page 77) and the rest amount will be disbursed as and when the same will be received from the Government. He argues that Complainant has filed this complaint with an ulterior motive to avoid repayment of the loan amount. It is contended that the Complainant had taken Education Loan on 27.10.2009 for 3 years B. Tech. Course as per Application Form (Annexure A at page 51) and according to the terms of sanctioned letter, the loan is repayable in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.4,866/- commencing from 6 months of completion of the course or getting any job, whichever is earlier, and before starting the repayment through installment, the Complainant/his Guarantor is liable to pay the interest of the loan during the moratorium period but neither the Complainant nor his Guarantor paid any heed to repay the interest of the loan amount. It is further argued that the Complainant and his father (Proforma OP No.1) were aware of the fact but they did not pay any heed to make repayment of loan amount as per terms and conditions. He argues that the Ops never blocked the salary Account of the Proforma OP No.1 and it will be evident from the Statement of Salary Account (Annexure S, page 79 to 94) that on 30.11.2014, the Proforma OP No.1 had only balance of Rs.4.82 and on 01.01.2015, the Bank received a deposit of Rs.29,253/-. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
We have gone through the complaint, w/v, evidence on affidavit and documents filed by both the parties. We have also considered the submission of Ld. Agents of both parties.
Admittedly, the Complainant took Education Loan being Account No.548106550000008 from the OP No.1 and Proforma OP No.1 (Akhilesh Dutta) was the Guarantor of the loan. Admittedly, the loan was sanctioned on 27.10.2009. The first point taken by the Complainant is that in spite of disbursement of Rs.21,500/- on 30.1.2009 by a cheque, the amount of disbursement as shown in the Statement of Account on 30.12.2009 is Rs.28,500/- with a difference of Rs.7,000/- which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1. The Op No.1 has challenged the said issue by stating that on 30.12.2009, the disbursement was Rs.28,500/- by Demand Draft No.192351 amounting to Rs.21,500/- and No.00844 amounting to Rs.7,000/- and the Complainant and the Proforma OP No.1 also put their signatures in the vouchers dated 30.12.2009 and the Tax Invoice for purchase of Printer was duly signed by the Complainant (Annexure E at page 56).It is crystal clear from the documents filed by the Bank authority that Rs.28,500/- was disbursed from the Loan Account of the Complainant on 30.12.2009 and it was within the knowledge of the Complainant and the Proforma OP No.1. It is also clear from the Statement of Account submitted by the Complainant with his written argument that subsidy amount of Rs.20,156.82 was disbursed to the Loan Account (Annexure 11 at page 45). Certificate dated 20.01.16 (Annexure T at page 95) issued by the OP No.1 reveals that education loan subsidy of the Complainant as per Govt. of India guidelines is Rs.78,663/- only. It appears from Annexure 11 at page 45 that Rs.20,156.82 has already been credited to the Loan Account. The Complainant is silent about the repayment of the loan. He also raised the issue that total subsidy amount has not been credited to his Account and the Salary Account of his father was blocked. Sri Akhilesh Dutta, father of the Complainant is not the Complainant of this case and it is the version of the OP N o.1 that the OP No.1 never blocked the Salary Account of the Proforma OP No.1. It is clear from the submission of both sides that the loan amount has not yet been repaid and the Complainant is silent why he has not been repaying the loan amount. It is the option of the OP No.1 to realize the repayable amount either from the borrower or from the Guarantor of any loan by adopting due process of law. It is also clear from the documents submitted by the OP No.1 that the Complainant applied for Insurance of his education loan and Rs.14,367/- was received by Star Union Dai-ichi Life Insurance. Therefore, the disbursement of education loan amount including insurance coverage is Rs.1,90,767/- (Rs.1,76,400/- + 14,367/-). On a careful consideration, this Forum finds that on 30.12.2009, total amount of Rs.28,500/- was disbursed and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for showing disbursement of Rs.28.500/- on 30.12.2009. It is not correct to say that only disbursement amount of loan is Rs.1,76,400/-, especially when the amount for Insurance Premium was taken by the Bank amounting to Rs.14,367/-. Therefore, total disbursement of education loan amount was Rs.1,90,767/- in spite of sanctioned amount of Rs.2,20,000/-. The contention of the Complainant regarding wrong calculation of EMI has no basis at all. The Complainant has purposely suppressed the facts in spite of his knowledge with a view to delay in making repayment. In the circumstances, we find that the Complainant has miserably failed to establish that the Ops have any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. On the other hand, it appears to us that the Complainant has filed this case with an ulterior motive to avoid repayment of his loan amount as per Agreement. This Forum finds valid reason to hold that the claim is vexatious and cost should be imposed upon the Complainant. It is not known whether the Complainant has got any job or not but he has completed his graduation in Engineering. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Complainant may be directed to pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- for filing vexatious complaint without reasonable cause or excuse. In the result, the Complaint case fails.
Reasons for delay : The case was filed on 10.07.15 and admitted on 20.07.15. The OP Nos. 1&2 put their appearance on 20.08.15 through their Ld. Agent. The Op Nos. 1&2 filed W/V on 26.04.16 and this Forum took endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of provision U/s 13 (3A) of the C.P. Act but could not dispose of the case due to some reasons as reflected in order sheets
Hence,
it is Ordered,
That the Complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the Complainant to the Ops (OP Nos. 1&2). The Complainant is directed to pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the OPs by 45 days from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
