IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of January, 2018
Filed on 28.12.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.414/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Smt. Reshma P.P. The Branch Manager
D/o P.T. Ponnappan Dhanalakshmi Bank
Puthenthara House Kuthiyathode Branch
Kuthiyathode P.O., Alappuzha Cherthala, Alappuzha
Residing at C/o Sajeevan V.S. (By Adv. C. Parameswaran)
Velasseril House, Kalavamkodam P.O.
Cherthala, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
On September, 2010 the complainant had applied for educational loan from the opposite party. Even after 5 months the loan was not sanctioned. So her parents managed to collect the fees and they remitted the first semester fees. Thereafter, the complainant could not pay the second semester fees. Even though she was allowed to attend the second semester exam, later she was not allowed to attend the third semester classes since she failed to remit the fee for second semester exam. So she was forced to discontinue the course for one year. Again she joined in the third year for the third semester exam. Then only the second semester amount was sanctioned. Thereafter there is no delay in getting the loan amount. The complainant lost one year was only due to the delay committed by the opposite party in sanctioning the loan amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is barred by limitation. As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant ought to have filed on or before 6.7.2013 therefore, the complaint being filed after the period of two years since the date o the alleged cause of action is belated and hence is barred by the law of limitation. The educational loan application submitted by the complainant processed by the opposite party bank strictly in terms with norms and procedures laid down by the bank, the claim to the contrary is false ad hence denied. The complainant had applied for educational loan during the currency of her studies and hence the loan in question has no nexus with her studies as alleged in the complaint. For ensuring that double financing is not involved, the banks at large are insisting the complainant for giving an undertaking that the complainant has not availed any loan from any other banks for her education. The complainant had submitted undertaking regarding non availability of loan from other banks only on 22.8.2011. The lapse and delay happened from the part of the complainant is tactically concealed by her and made allegations against the opposite party which are far remote from truth. There is no inaction on the part of the opposite party bank in the matter of sanction of the loan as alleged by the complainant. There is no bonafide in the claim and the same is only after thought. The opposite party asserts that the complainant had not given undertaking regarding non available of loan from other banks at the time of sanctioning of the loan. The opposite party had never assured the complainant that the loan application will be processed quickly by the opposite party etc. are false and hence denied. As and when the complainant submitted the relevant records / executed documents the opposite party bank had processed the loan application and disbursed the loan to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the matter and the claim to the contrary is baseless.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. The opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4.
4. Points for consideration are :-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs.
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for the educational loan with the opposite party. According to the complainant even though loan was sanctioned the first allotment was given only after the second semester exam. Ext.B3 is the loan sanctioned order. It shows that the loan was sanctioned on 18.6.2011. According to the complainant since she has not received the first allotment amount, her parents managed to collect the amount from other sources and they remitted the fees. Ext.B4 shows that the first sem exam was on October, 2010. Ext.B4 mark sheet produced shows that she got good marks in the first sem exam. It is an admitted fact that the first installment was given after the second semester examination. According to the complainant opposite party committed delay in allotting first semester fee as well as second semester fee. Even though she was allowed to write the second semester exam she was not allowed to attend the third semester classes,
since she failed to remit the second semester exam fee. Truly it will cause much mental pain to a student like complainant. In the proof affidavit it is stated that the delay in disbursing amount was due to the failure of the complainant in the second semester exam. But there is no such contention in the version. Hence the opposite party is not entitled to state it in the affidavit without any specific contention in this regard in the version. There is no rule which disentitling the loanee any installment if the loanee fails in one of the semester examination also. It is pertinent to notice that complainant has got good marks in the first semester exam. In order to disburse the second semester loan amount the opposite party would have to look the marks in the first semester examination. More over the usual practice is that professional colleges normally allow students to move to the higher class even if they fail in a few subjects in the examination for previous year/semester. The disbursement of subsequent installments should not be stopped for the reason that the student has failed one or two subjects in the examination provided she has been allowed to keep terms. In the instant case, the opposite party failed to disburse the first and second allotment within the stipulated period so that the complainant could not remit the exam fee in time, she was not also allowed to continue the third semester classes for one year. According to the complainant when she applied for the loan, she submitted all the required documents and as per Ext.B3 and loan was sanctioned on 18.6.2011. The passbook produced shows first allotment of education loan was only on 7.10.2011 and 2nd allotment was on 3.5.2012. The mark list produced shows that the complainant did not write the exam on October, 2011 and April, 2012. According to the complainant since she failed to remit the 2nd sem exam fee she was not allowed to attend the third sem classes. The reason for the delay in disbursing the first and second allotment is unbelievable because at the first inception itself all the papers signed by the applicant.
6. Ext.B3 mark sheet also shows tht the duration of curse is three years. The last sem exam she attended was on April, 2014. Had she obtained the first and second allotment in time she would have passed out in the year 2013. Hence cause of action is continuing complaint is not barred by limitation. From the above discussion, we are of opinion that the delay in paying the first and second allotment of educational loan by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to give Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.20,000/- with 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistance transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2018.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) : Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Reshma P.P. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the consolidated mark sheet
Ext.A2 series - Copy of the Annexure 4 (2 Nos.)
Ext.A3 series - Copy of the receipts (3 Nos.)
Ext.A4 - Copy of receipt dated 28.11.2012
Ext.A5 - Copy of the application for educational loan
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - James Joseph (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the loan application
Ext.B2 - Copy of the demand promissory note dated 16.7.2011
Ext.B3 - Copy of the sanction letter dated 18.6.2011
Ext.B4 - Copy of the consolidated mark sheet
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. parties/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
