SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint under sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to pay the interest subsidy of Rs.1,99,400/- with interest @12% per annum together with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the damages and also allow cost of this proceedings .
The case of the complainant is that she availed an educational loan of Rs.9,17,570/- from OPs 1&2 and the amount was disbursed to her on 17/4/2014,14/7/2014 and 29/8/2015. Since the annual income of complainant’s family is less than 4.5 lakh per annum the complainant is entitled to get an interest subsidy as per the notification issued by the government. During the period from 2017-18 to 2019-20 the complainant received a total subsidy of Rs.2,97,063/- against the actual due subsidy of Rs.4,96,463/- So there is a balance of Rs.1,99,400/- without any valid reasons. So the complainant approached the OPs 1&2 on many occasions and also filed a complaint before 3rd OP. Thereafter the OPs 1&2 issued a reply to the 3rd OP wherein the 1st OP has stated that it was an omission and a wrong notion that the eligible subsidy would be released to the complainant. But no action is taken by the OPs to account the unpaid subsidy. So the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the OPs to disburse the arrears of interest subsidy with interest ,but no steps were taken by the OPs. So all the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Opposite parties ,through their counsel alleged that the payment of subsidy does not amount to providing any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable before this commission. The complainant along with her father applied for an education loan of Rs.12lakhs from the 1st OP and the loan was sanctioned on 17/2/2014 under the Cent Vidyarthi Education Loan scheme of the OPs 1&2. At the request of the complainant a total amount of Rs.9,17,570/- was disbursed. The Course period plus one year or six months after getting the job is granted as repayment moratorium. It is admitted that the complainant claimed benefit of interest Subsidy Scheme of Govt. of India as per the Central Scheme to provide interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on education loan taken students from economically weaker sections from schedule banks under the Educational Loan scheme of the Indian Banks' Association to pursue professional/ technical education studies in India. The total amount of Rs.2,97,063/- received by this OPs towards interest subsidy has been duly credited in her loan account. No other amount is received by the OPs towards interest subsidy due to the complainant. As per the scheme, interest payable by the student belonging to EWS for availing educational loan for the period of moratorium ie the Course period plus one year or six months after getting the job , whichever is earlier shall be borne by the Govt. of India. As the moratorium period granted to the complainant was over as on 17/2/2020. She is not entitled for any interest subsidy thereafter. The complainant has also started the repayment from 8/8/2016. The complainant has also not raised any claim for such subsidy before this OPs. Further submitted that subsidy is provided by the Central Government and disbursement of the claims are made as decided by the government, based on the income certificate issued by the designated authorities under the scheme The complainant has initially submitted annual income certificate dtd.20/6/2013 to get the loan processed with the interest subsidy benefit. Validity of the Income certificate was one year only. Thereafter the complainant has not submitted income certificate issued by the designated authority before OPs. It is also submitted that the government of India has revised the interest subsidy scheme for the academic year 2018-19 onwards. As per the revised scheme for educational loans exceeding Rs.10 lakh the subsidy under the scheme is available upto Rs.10lakh only for studies in India upto 31/3/2018. As such the complainant is entitled for subsidy benefit only upto 31/3/2018, which was duly granted to her in the account and no other amount of interest subsidy is entitled by the complainant. There is no defect or deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Father of the complainant filed his proof affidavit and documents. Examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A8. PW1 was cross-examined for the OP. On the side of OPs, Asst.Manager of OP bank filed his proof affidavit and examined as DW1. Master circular has been produced and got marked as Ext. B1. After that the learned counsel of both parties made argument and submitted decisions of Apex court. The learned counsel of OP also filed written argument note.
The question involved in this case is whether the complainant is eligible to get the balance interest subsidy of Rs.1,99,400/- as claimed in the complaint?
There is no dispute that the complainant has availed an educational loan of Rs.917570/- from the 1st & 2nd OP and the amount was disbursed to the complainant on 17/4/2014, 14/7/2014 and 29/8/2015. Further admitted that during the period from 2017-18 to 2019-20, the complainant received a total subsidy of Rs.297063/-.
Complainant alleged that the actual subsidy entitled to her was Rs.496463/-, but she has received only Rs.297063/-. So she is entitled to get the balance of Rs.199400/-. OPs 1&2 withhold the said interest subsidy amount of Rs.199400/- without any valid reasons. It is alleged that though she had approached OPs 1&2 many times, no action is taken by the OPs to account the said subsidy amount.
On the other hand 1st contention of the OP is that payment of subsidy does not amount to providing any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable before this commission.
Both the learned counsels of the parties argued with regard to this point.
The learned counsel of complainant submitted two judgment with regard to this point. In 2023(4)CPR(NC)304 Canara Bank vs Piyush Tripadhi and Ors and Judgment of the District Consumer Forum, West Godavari. Both cases were filed under Consumer Protection Act with regard to receival of Central Interest Subsidy scheme to Education loan. Both cases are found maintainable before the Consumer Commission.
The learned counsel of OPs submitted two judgment of Hon’ble National Commission (1) Deepinder Singh & Anr Vs The Primary Co-operative on 24 January 2020 in which the Hon’ble National Commission held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a consumer as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Another judgment Choudhry Ashok Yadav vs Rewari Central Co-OP Bank & Anr on 8th February 2013, the Hon’ble National Commission has taken the same view as stated in the above case. It is found that both cases were dismissed as the fact in those cases are not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
On considering the judgments produced from the side of both parties, 2023(4) CPR (NC) 304 is the latest judgment in which the Hon’ble National Commission held that the Central Govt. of India launched an Interest Rate Subsidy Scheme for education loan for students who belong to economically weaker section. Under the scheme, the Govt. of India was to provide” full interest subsidy” during the period of moratorium. It is seen that National Commission allowed the Revision Petition of the Complainant. From which it is revealed that”Interest Subsidy” matter is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. So the 1st contention of OP is found against them.
Another contention raised by the OP is that subsidy is provided by the Central Government and disbursement of the claims are made as decided by the government, based on the income certificate issued by the designated authorities under the scheme The complainant has initially submitted annual income certificate dtd.20/6/2013 to get the loan processed with the interest subsidy benefit. Validity of the Income certificate was one year only. Thereafter the complainant has not submitted income certificate issued by the designated authority before us .
Complainant has stated that she had submitted income certificate when applied for the education loan. So subsequent submission of income certificate is not necessary. Moreover OP had not demanded through any intimation, to submit income certificate after sanctioning the loan.
For clarifying that point, the deposition given by DW1, the Assistant Manager is to be looked into “ (page 2&3) പരാതിക്കാരിക്ക് interest subsidy മുഴുവൻ കൊടുക്കാതിരിക്കാൻ എന്താണ് കാരണം? Income certificate ന്ർറെ base ലാണ് interest subsidy കൊടുക്കുന്നത്. 3-ാംമത്തെ വർഷം Income certificate ഹാജരാക്കിയില്ല. ഹർജിക്കാരി എത്ര തവണ Income certificate ഹാജരാക്കി? ഒരു തവണ. loan അനുവദിക്കുന്ന സമയത്ത് മാത്രമാണ് Income certificate ഹാജരാക്കിയത്. Income certificate ന് കാലാവധി എത്രയാണ്? ഒരു വർഷമാണ് കാലാവധി. എവിടെയാണ് പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത്? ഞാൻ കണ്ടിട്ടില്ല അത് എന്ർറെ ബോധ്യമാണ്. നിങ്ങൾ 2-ാംമത്തെ വർഷം Income certificate ന് subsidy കൊടുത്തത്? വിശ്വാസത്തിന്ർറെ പുറത്താണ്. interest subsidy കിട്ടണമെങ്കിൽ എല്ലാ വർഷവും Income certificate ഹാജരാക്കണമെന്ന് കത്ത് കൊടുത്തോ? ഇല്ല. കത്ത് കൊടുക്കുന്ന കീഴ്വഴക്കം ഇല്ല . 2-ാംമത്തെ വർഷം Income certificate നല്കിയത് വാക്കാലുള്ള വിശ്വാസം കൊണ്ടാണെന്നും ആയതുകൊണ്ട് എത്രയും വേഗം Income certificate ഹാജരാക്കണമെന്നും പറഞ്ഞ് കത്ത് കൊടുത്തോ? ഇല്ല. വിളിച്ചുപറയുകയായിരുന്നു. Income certificate ഹാജരാക്കിയിരുന്നെങ്കിൽ മുഴുവൻ subsidyയും പരാതിക്കാരിക്ക് കിട്ടുമായിരുന്നു? തീർച്ചയായും കിട്ടും”.
So from the deposition of the OP, the OPs denied the balance interest subsidy only due to non-submitting of Income certificate. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had given Income Certificate, along with the Education loan application. Here the learned counsel for complainant produced guidelines of Central Sector Interest Subsidy Scheme”. In the said guide lines it is specifically stated that “This Scheme provides interest subsidy to the Students of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for pursuing professional/ technical courses in India. The Scheme is applicable to all Scheduled Banks linked with the existing Model Educational Loan scheme of the Indian Banks' Association. Under the revised Scheme, entire interest accrued for loan amount up to Rs. 10 Lakhs during the Moratorium period i.e. Course period plus one year is subsidized for the eligible education loan accounts. “
Further in the Eligibility Norms, it is clearly mentioned that Income limit- “students those parent income is upto 4.5 lakhs per annum will fall under the EWS category”. With regard to submission of Income certificate, states that ”Branches to note that income proof to be obtained only once at the time of sanction and not every year”. It is an admitted fact that the parent income of complainant was below 4.5 lakhs at the time of sanctioning of the education loan and the loan sanction was below Rs.10 lakhs.
Moreover for clarifying this point the learned counsel of complainant further submitted order in CC.No.15/2018 of CDRF,West Godavari. In which the DCDRC, referred citations of (1) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in between Thota Prakash vs The Branch Manager, Sbh on 22 February 2017, FA.No.15/2016 against CC.No.06/2015 (2) Patna High Court in between Chandeshwar Prasad Singh vs The State Bank of India and Ors on 1/12/2011, letters Patent appeal No.1815 of 2011 in Civil writ jurisdiction case No.9479 of 2010 in Interlocutory Application No.8199 of 2011 in letters appeal No.1815 of 2011 .
Further , the commission observed that the 1st OP failed to sent the interest details to the Nodal Bank from 2nd year onwards eventhough Ex.20 says that” the student has to submit income certificate only ones when the 1st claims is lodged. Non performance of their duty ie, not forwarding the interest subsidy details of the complainant to the Nodal Bank amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
It is argued by the learned counsel of complainant that based on the above said circular and judgments, this complaint is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to get entire interest subsidy of her education loan without submitting income certificate every year.
Hence the submission raised by OP’s learned counsel that validity of income certificate is only for one year cannot be taken into account. Considering the relevant aspect of the present matter, we are of the view that the complainant is eligible to get the balance of Rs.1,99,400/-. We are of the opinion that the action of OPs 1 to 3 in not disbursing eligible interest subsidy to the student (complainant here in) , amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.1,99,400/- with interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings of this complaint. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount Rs.1,99,400/-+Rs.15,000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant can execute the order as per the provisions in Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1&A2- copy of lawyer notice to OPs 1&2
A3&A4-Acknowledgment card
A5&A6- copy of bank statement
A7&A8- copy of letter dtd.10/8/16, 19/8/16
B1- Master Circular
PW1- Preman.M- Father of complaionant
DW1- Pradeep.P.A- witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
