Date of Filing: 03-07-2015 Date of Final Order: 29-02-2016
The brief facts of the present case, as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Jyoti Bikash Biswas in the month of October, 2010 took an Educational Loan of Rs.4,00,000/-, being A/C No.4000201510000218 from the O.P. No.1, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch for higher education of his son namely Tanmay Biswas with this assurance that they will render proper service towards the Complainant and the said loan was sanctioned after preparation of mutual agreement with the O.P. According the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the Complainant has already paid 55 installments of Rs.1,65,000/- in total (each installment of Rs.3,000/-) up to 04/05/2015 and outstanding balance of Rs.4,24,882/-.
Subsequently, the Complainant came to know that the Central Govt. pronounced that “Central Scheme to provide interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on Educational Loan taken by students from economically weaker sections from scheduled banks under the Educational Loan Scheme of the Indian Bank’s Association to pursue technical/professional studies in India”.
Thereafter the Complainant went to the O.P. No.1 & 2 to discuss regarding the said interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on Educational Loan along with required documents i.e. annual income certificate and he is entitled to get the benefit of the said interest subsidy, but the O.P. No.1 & 2 did not pay any heed towards the Complainant. On 24/04/2014 the Complainant submitted a letter to the O.P. No.1, U.B.K.G. Bank for the purpose of obtaining the said Central Scheme for Interest Subsidy (CSIS) which was illegally received by the O.P. No.1, Bank from October, 2010 to 28/10/2014 as the said CSIS was applicable from the academic year, 2009-10 and the Complainant is entitled to get this Central Scheme for Interest Subsidy.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffered from mental pain & agony and unnecessary harassment and there was also deficiency in service adopting by the O.Ps, the complainant suffering from financial loss.
Hence, the complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to get back of interest which was received by the O.P. No.1 at the period from October, 2010 to 28/10/2014 and also to pay (i) Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony, unnecessary harassment, (ii) Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and (iii) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
It appears that after receiving the notice from this Forum the O.P. No.1, The Branch Manager, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhetaguri Branch and the O.P. No.2, the Chairman, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Cooch Behar, appeared through their Ld. Agent (G.P.) and filed W/V but neither file any affidavit by way of evidence nor appeared before the Forum on many dates also on the date fixed for argument for which argument was heard in Ex-parte. The argument was closed on 15.02.2016 also date for Final Order fixed on 29.02.2016. Surprisingly, on 24.02.2016 the Ld. Agent for the O.Ps. by filing a put up petition prayed for vacating Ex-parte order and accepting the Evidence with some documents and written argument. The Forum considered and rejected the said petition as at that time the Final order has been almost completed. All the documents are kept with the record but not for consideration.
The Opposite Parties by filing W/V denied the entire allegation of the Complainant and contended that the Complainant has no locus-standy to file the present case before this Forum as the dispute is Civil in nature also the Complainant is not a consumer. The Opposite Parties have no deficiency in service as such prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record. Perused the evidence on affidavit and written Argument of the Complainant also heard the argument in Ex-parte.
Point No.1.
The Complainant preferred an application to the O.P. bank for an educational loan for his son and accordingly obtained loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- being A/C No.4000201510000218 from the Opposite Party. The son of the Complainant is the beneficiary of the said scheme. Thus, the relation of the Complainant with the O.P. so established from the record. We are convinced to hold that the Complainant is the consumer of the Opposite Party.
Point No.2.
The offices of the Opposite Party bank are situated within this district and the complaint value is far less than the prescribed limit for which this Forum has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion. Admittedly and undisputedly, the Complainant took an Educational Loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the O.P. bank in the month of October 2010. The point of the dispute is that the Complainant already paid to the O.P. Rs. 1,65,000/- for repayment of loan. In the meanwhile the Complainant came to know that the Central Govt. pronounced a scheme to provide interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on Educational Loan taken by the students from economically weaker section. The Opposite Party bank did not disclose the matter to the Complainant and took interest on the Educational Loan from the present Complainant illegally.
Annexure “A” series, the account statement of the Complainant for the period 30.04.2011 to 11.05.2015 reveals that the Opposite Party bank received interest in every month against the said Educational Loan though as per Circular No. SB/10-21-ISS/Cir/3535 dated 28th June, 2011(Annexure “F” series) and the circular dated 19.05.2011 No. SB/Cir/10-21-ISS/3216 (Annexure “B” series) the Complainant is entitled get the benefit of the Central scheme for interest subsidy on educational loan which started from the year 2009-10 (commencing from 1st April 2009). The Complainant is deprived from obtaining the said benefit due to the negligent act of the opposite parties.
Annexure “B”, the copy of Scheme of Govt. of India, Ministry of HRD from which it transpires that the Central Gov. announced a scheme to provide full interest subsidy during the period of moratorium on loans taken by students belonging to economically weaker sections. On a meticulous reading the documents marked as “B” series it is very much clear that the Scheme shall be applicable from the academic year 2009-2010. It also appears from the Circular of Social Banking SB/Cir/10-21-ISS/3216 dated May 19,2011 that “The scheme came into effect from the academic year 2009-2010 and cover loan amount disbursed by banks from1st April 2009 onwards. In respect of technical /professional courses started prior to 01.04.2009, interest subsidy would be available only in respect of loan disbursement made by banks on or after 01.04.2009. Canara Bank has been designated as the Nodal Bank to administer the interest subsidy claims on behalf of other banks. The other Annexure marked as “B” series revealed that the Complainant is entitled to get the benefit of the said central scheme but that was not obtained by the Complainant due to negligence of the Opposite Party bank.
In the Annexure “B” series there is one document filed by the Complainant i.e. the Guideline of O.P. Bank for providing relief on interest that does not match with the circulars of the Indian Bank Association as per scheme of Govt. Of India Ministry of HRD Dept. Of Higher Education. How the O.P. bank prepared the said guideline without following the scheme of Govt. of India or circular of Indian Bank Association, the reason best known to them.
Annexure “C” is the income certificate of the Complainant issued by the B.D.O. Dinhata Block 1 that depicts that the annual income of the Complainant is less than the prescribed limit as laid down in the Central Scheme for obtaining benefit of the interest subsidy of Educational Loan.
Annexure “E” reveals that the Complainant preferred an application to the opposite Party Bank on 24.04.2014 for getting the benefit of the subsidy on interest. It appears from Annexure “B” “E” that the Scheme shall be applicable from the Academic year 2009-10 then the Complainant is very much eligible to avail the said facility for his son.
On perusal the above annexure we find that the Complainant preferred an Educational Loan application to the O.P. Bank for his son and the O.P. sanctioned the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- after completion of all formalities in the month of October, 2010 but the Complainant as well as his son is deprived from getting the said benefit though he is the bonafide consumer/customer of the Opposite party bank.
The O.P. only files a W/V where in, he makes denial of the statement of the Complainant and nothing more. No evidence of the O.P. with cogent documents in support of his contention has been filed. In this juncture, reliance has been placed upon the ruling cited by the Ld. Agent of the Complainant reported in IV (2006) CPJ 213 (NC) where in the Honb’le National Commission pleased to hold that- In absence of any counter affidavit, the case of the Complainant stands proved. In the present case the O.P. got ample scope to file evidence on affidavit but he failed to file the same for which the allegation of the Complainant remained uncontroverted.
In the light of the above and relying on the materials brought on record also keeping in view the position of law, we hold that the allegations of the Complainant remain uncontroverted and stands proved. Moreover, the documents clearly show that as per announced scheme the Complainant as well as his son is entitled to get relief from loan interest.
Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case also the facts emerging in evidence on affidavit of the Complainant we find that the Complainant is able to prove his case and the documents corroborated the facts in the complaint. Besides the O.P. did not contest the case even after filing W/V that seems he has nothing to challenge the case.
In the light of the foregoing discussion we are constrained to hold that the Complainant is able to prove his case. Also deficiency on service of the O.P. bank is well proved.
Thus, the complaint succeeds by unchallenged testimonies.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The complaint be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs. 10,000/-against the O.P. but in part.
The O.Ps are directed to refund the Complainant the interest as taken by the O.P. Bank from the period October 2010 to October 2014 against the Educational Loan also to pay the Complainant Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service.
The O.Ps are hereby also directed to comply with the order jointly and/or severally within 45 days failure of which O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
