By G. Yadunadhan, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that he availed a loan of Rs.1,05,000/- from opposite party for studying MBA during the year 2004-06 with Second complainant as Co-obligant. The interest rate for the loan was 9.25% since this was an educational loan. As per the loan agreement complainant has to repay the principal amount only after getting the employment. Complainant admits that to avoid future liability they were making advance repayment of the principal amount. Now opposite party charging 11.25% as interest which is an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Complainant claims that all the co-operative banks and nationalized banks are charging only 9.25% as interest. Complainant was materially misleaded by the opposite party. Due to the higher interest rate, complainant sustained huge financial loss. He is ready and willing to pay interest @ 9.25% against 11.25%. Thereby deficiency on the part of opposite party.<br /> <br /> Opposite party filed version stating that all averments and allegations in the complaint denies and complaint is not maintainable within the meaning of section 2 (d) and 2(g)of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant admits the issuance of loan of Rs.1,05,000/- and as per terms and condition of the sanction of loan the rate of interest is always fixed on BPLR. The Government has provided a scheme for 2% interest subsidy to education loan up to 4 lakhs sanctioned with effect from 1.3.2004 to bright and needy students. However, it has been clarified later that this interest subsidy is given credit to the eligible borrower on receipt of the same from Government. Opposite party informed the complainant regarding the rate of interest applicable for this loan account is 11.25% and not 9.25% as mentioned in the sanction letter. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice committed by them. The subsidy on education loan if at all prevailing as a concession announced by the Government of India and the revocation of the same is also by the Government and according to opposite party if the complainant wants to agitate this they have to agitate before the authority who announced it. The complainant has not raised any objection till the filing of the complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed with cost.<br /> <br /> Points to be considered: (1) whether the complaint is maintainable? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?<br /> <br /> Since the opposite party raised the contention of maintainability of the complaint, this has been looked into first. The entire dispute is based on an agreement and the rate of interest agreed as per that agreement, the complainant has to approach a Civil Court deciding the same since this based on an agreement. Apart from the above the rate of interest and concession of interest is approved by Government of India. Since the Government changed in the policy that was truly informed the same on 26.10.2004. That document is marked as Ext. B2. The complainant could have questioned this on receipts of registered letter itself. Moreover, the complainant claimed that all the Nationalised banks and co-operative banks are charging only 9.25% as interest, for which he has not produced any document. At the time of argument the Counsel appearing for the complainant informed that based on this loan, he completed the MBA course and got the job. Hence there is no merit in the complaint. <br /> <br /> On issue No.2, complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Court this the 8th day of July 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> (Forwarded/By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br />