BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.15 of 2015
Date of Instt. 16.1.2015
Date of Decision :19.05.2016
1.Karandeep Singh son of Daljeetam Singh R/o 210-L, Model Town Jalandhar at present 1334, The Alameda Apt No.285, San Jose, Calfornia, USA through his father and special attorney Sh.Daljeetam Singh son of Joginder Singh.
2.Daljeetam Singh son of Joinder Singh R/o 210-L, Model Town, Jalandhar.
..........Complainants
Versus
1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Market, Jalandhar.
2.The Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, RASMECC, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar.
3.The Managing Director, State Bank of India, The Mall, Patiala.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Raman Sharma Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.YV Rishi Adv., counsel for OPs.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. Complainants have filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant No.1 got sanctioned education loan of Rs.17 Lacs from OPs under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme on 2.7.2009 with interest @13.50%(floating interest) for perusing his Master of Science in Electrical Engineering at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA, repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.20,238/- plus interest, after one year of completion of study or six months after getting job which ever is earlier. Complainant No.2 Daljeetam Singh stood as guarantor. The loan was disbursed to complainant from August 2009 to January 2011. The complainant alleges that the OP charged higher rate of interest as applicable to Career Loan Scheme, whereas loan was sanctioned under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme under which rate of interest is 13% per annum if the amount is upto Rs.7.50 Lac and 12% per annum if the loan amount is above Rs.7.50 Lacs. The interest is to be charged on base rate system w.e.f 1st July 2010 but OP bank kept on charging higher rate of interest upto 15.75% per annum under BPLR system and Career Loan Scheme without intimating or without giving option to the complainant to switch over to base rate system w.e.f 1st July 2010 as per RBI guidelines. Complainant No.1 started depositing the installments from March 2012 as he got job in the month of January 2012. The complainants submitted that the OPs are negligent in handling the loan account. The loan account of complainant No.1 was treated as NPA (Non Perfroming Assets) account on 1.5.2013 and the complainants were served with notice No.1590 dated 26.8.2013 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002, asking the complainant to deposit entire outstanding amount within 60 days. Inspite of repayment of Rs.16,20,000/- upto July 2014, the OP calculated outstanding loan amount of Rs.8,53,194/- upto July 2014. The OP failed to rectify the interest charged at the higher rate. Complainant in the month of July/August 2014, under protest deposited Rs.10 Lacs in the aforesaid loan account with request to rectify the rate of interest charged as the complainant has paid Rs.20,88,000/- against the loan amount of Rs.14,79,197/- and the bank statement still shows outstanding loan amount of Rs.3,87,193/- and repayment loan amount is Rs.12 Lacs. The complainant served legal notice dated 6.8.2015 upon the OPs. The OPs gave vague reply that the interest charged is under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme and not as per Career Loan Scheme. Complainants submitted that the statement of account shows that the OPs charged interest under Career Loan Scheme. The complainant sent email as well as hard copy of letter dated 7.12.2014 with request to rectify the errors alongwith copies of circular of RBI and State Bank of Patiala regarding charging of interest at base rate system instead of previous BPLR system but OP did not rectify the rate of interest charged from the complainant as per RBI guidelines as well as as per agreement. On such averments, the complainants have prayed for directing the OPs to rectify the error of charging higher rate of interest. They have also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply pleading that complainants have availed education loan from OPs to the tune of Rs.14.79 Lacs under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme for perusing Degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering of complainant No.1 at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA, as per arrangement letter duly signed by the parties. The rate of interest as alleged by the complainant is not applicable to the loan granted under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme before 1.7.2010. The OP denied that the bank is charging higher rate of interest applicable to Career Loan Scheme and that the complainant was not given option to switch over the base rate system w.e.f 1.7.2010 as per RBI guidelines. The complainant was not regular in repayment of installments. As such, the account of the complainant No.1 was declared NPA and notice under SARFAESI Act was served upon the complainants. The OPs are custodian of public funds and duty bound to recover the same. Complainants thereafter paid Rs.10 Lacs in the aforesaid loan account. The rate of interest charged from the complainant is as per the agreement/arrangement letter between the parties and no extra or excessive rate of interest was charged from the complainant. The complainant was even given concession of base rate system to the tune of Rs.9,010.39/- as per RBI guidelines despite the fact that the complainant never applied for option to switch over to the base rate system. OPs denied other material averments of the complainants.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant No.1 got sanctioned education loan of Rs.17 Lacs from OPs under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme on 2.7.2009 with interest @13.50%(floating interest) for perusing his degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA, repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.20,238/- plus interest, after one year of completion of study or six months after getting job which ever is earlier. Complainant No.2 Daljeetam Singh stood as guarantor. The loan was disbursed to complainant from August 2009 to January 2011. The complainant alleges that the OP charged higher rate of interest as applicable to Career Loan Scheme, whereas loan was sanctioned under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme under which rate of interest is 13% per annum if the amount is upto Rs.7.50 Lac and 12% per annum if the loan amount is above Rs.7.50 Lacs. The loan is to be charged under base rate system w.e.f 1st July 2010 but OP bank kept on charging higher rate of interest upto 15.75% per annum under BPLR system and Career Loan Scheme without intimating or without giving option to the complainant to switch over to base rate system w.e.f 1st July 2010 as per RBI guidelines Ex,C4. Complainant No.1 started depositing the installments from March, 2012 as he got job in the month of January, 2012. The complainants submitted that the OPs are negligent in handling the loan account. The loan account of complainant No.1 was treated as NPA (Non Perfroming Assets) account on 1.5.2013 and the complainants were served notice No.1590 dated 26.8.2013 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002, asking the complainant to deposit entire outstanding amount within 60 days. Inspite of repayment of Rs.16,20,000/- upto July 2014, the OP calculated outstanding loan amount of Rs.8,53,194/- upto July 2014. The OP failed to rectify the interest charged at the higher rate. Complainant in the month of July/August 2014, under protest deposited Rs.10 Lacs in the aforesaid loan account with request to rectify the rate of interest charged as the complainant has paid Rs.20,88,000/- against the loan amount of Rs.14,79,197/- and the bank statement still shows outstanding loan amount of Rs.3,87,193/-. The complainant served legal notice dated 6.8.2015 Ex.C16 upon the OPs. The OPs gave vague reply that the interest charged is under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme and not under Career Loan Scheme. Complainants submitted that the statement of account Ex.C19 shows that the OPs charged interest under Career Loan Scheme. The complainant sent email as well as hard copy of letter dated 7.12.2014 Ex.C15 with request to rectify the errors alongwith copies of circular of RBI and State Bank of Patiala regarding charging of interest at base rate system instead of previous BPLR system but OP did not rectify the rate of interest charged from the complainant as per RBI guidelines as well as as per agreement Ex.C3. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that complainants have availed education loan from OPs for Rs.14.79 Lacs under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme for perusing his degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering of complainant No.1 at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA, as per arrangement letter Ex.C3 duly signed by the parties. The rate of interest as alleged by the complainant is not applicable to the loan granted under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme before 1.7.2010. The OP denied that the bank is charging higher rate of interest under Career Loan Scheme and that the complainant was not given option to switch over to the base rate system w.e.f 1.7.2010 as per RBI guidelines. The complainant was not regular in repayment of installment as such, the account of the complainant No.1 was declared NPA and notice under SARFAESI Act was served upon the complainants. The OP is custodian of public funds and duty bound to recover the same. Complainants paid Rs.10 Lacs in the aforesaid loan account which was adjusted. The rate of interest charged from the complainant is as per the agreement/arrangement letter Ex.C3 between the parties and no extra or excessive rate of interest was charged from the complainant. The complainant was even given concession of base rate system to the tune of Rs.9010.39/- as per RBI guidelines Ex.C4 despite the fact that the complainant never applied for option to switch over the base rate system. The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that under these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant No.1 got sanctioned education loan of Rs.17 Lacs and complainant No.1 has availed loan of Rs.14.79 Lacs under SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme for perusing his Master of Science in Electrical Engineering at San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA. The parties in this regard executed arrangement letter Ex.C3 which clearly shows that the rate of interest on the loan will be charged at BPLR 0.75% over/below which is currently 13.50% per annum with monthly rests. The rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time as displayed/notified in newspaper. The statement of account sent to the loanee. In the event of default in payment or any irregularity in account, penal interest will be charged. The amount was payable in 48 EMIs. The repayment installment will commence one year after the course period or six months on completion of course or after six months of getting the job which ever is earlier. Complainant started repayment of loan installment in March 2013 as complainant No.1 got a job in the month of January 2012. The OP has charged interest from the complainant as per the arrangement letter Ex.C3. As per the statements of account of the complainant Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP7, the complainant committed default in repayment of the installments. Complainant did not pay the installment from 30.9.2012 to 25.5.2013 i.e. for period of 8 months. As such, the loan account of the complainant was declared NPA by the OP bank and the complainant was served with notice No.1590 dated 26.8.2013 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 and then the complainant deposited Rs.10 Lacs in the aforesaid loan account but he did not paid the entire amount. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP has charged interest on the loan amount as per SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme and not as per Career Loan Scheme. No doubt the complainant has produced statement of account Ex.C19 on which career loan account (Karandeep Singh) is mentioned but this statement of account has been denied by the OP that they had issued any such statement of account to the complainant nor this statement of account has been attested by any competent authority of the OP bank nor this statement of account is certified under the Banker's Books Evidence Act. So, this statement of account Ex.C19 is not reliable. Whereas, the entire statements of account produced by the OPs Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP7 fully proved that the OP has charged interest from the complainant as per arrangement letter Ex.C3 duly executed between the parties and as per SBP Gyan Jyoti-Education Loan Scheme.
9. The other plea of the complainant is that the OP did not ask the complainant to avail option to switch over from BPLR system to base rate system as per guidelines of RBI Ex.C4, is also not tenable because it was for the complainant to apply for availing of such option and the OP is to allow the such option if opted by the loanee. Apart from this, the OP has produced letter dated 15.9.2015 which fully proves that the complainant was allowed this facility and he was given benefit of Rs.9010.39/- by switching over from BPLR system to base rate system. Moreover, from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainants became defaulters in making repayment of the installments of the loan regularly and the loan account of complainant No.1 has been declared NPA by the OP and complainants were given notice under SARFAESI Act to deposit the entire outstanding amount within 60 days. In order to avoid such proceedings, the complainant has filed the present complaint. We do not find any lapse on the part of the OP, they have charged rate of interest as per agreement/arrangement letter between the parties and as per rules and regulations of the RBI. Moreover, it has been held by Hon'ble National Commission in case ICICI Bank and Anr Vs. Ganga Singh Shekhawat III (2015) CPJ 507 (NC) that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to reopen the transaction between the complainant and the OP bank on the ground that interest charged was excessive.
10. In view of above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainants. Consequently, we hold that the complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
19.05.2016 Member President
