BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 12/05/2010

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 292/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is studying for B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) course at the Oxford College of Engineering Bommanahalli, Bangalore, the course is approved by A.I.C.T.E. He got the admission on merit basis. The complainant has to be paid total tuition fees as well as hostel fee have in lumpsum for getting the provisional admission regularized. The total tuition fee payable is Rs. 5,20,360/-. The complainant and his father Mr. Jacob Thomas approached the 3^rd opposite party on 14-08-2009 for getting an education loan under the Model Education loan scheme (Federal Special Vidya Loan Scheme) introduced by the Federal Bank. The complainant obtained a loan application from the 2^nd opposite party and submitted it before the third opposite party along with the documents sought by them. The father of the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party informed that they cannot disburse the loan in lumpsum as per the existing rules. But on an enquiry conducted by the complainant it has been revealed that no such rule is existing the Federal Bank Ltd. has already issued a loan in lumpsum to one Alvin Varghese who is also studying in the very same college. The said aspect was brought to the notice of the 3^rd opposite party. Thereafter, the father of the complainant approached the Regional Manager twice. But it was revealed that the loan application of the complainant has not been forwarded to the regional office. The act of the opposite parties to deny the educational loan to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Due to the denial of loan to the complainant, his admission has not been regularised so far. The loan scheme was introduced by the Government of India to help the poor students to pursue their higher studies. Though the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman for the redressal of grievance, they refused to interfere in the matter. Hence the complainant prefers this complaint. He is seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties :

1. To direct the opposite parties to disburse the educational loan for Rs. 5,20,360/- in lumpsum forthwith.

2. To direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant.

2. The version filed by the opposite parties :

The complainant herein is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant alleging unfair trade practice. But there is not even an allegation in the complaint that the opposite parties had made any false representation. Neither the loan was required to be sanctioned under any law nor has it been undertaken to be sanctioned by the bank in pursuance of any contract or otherwise. The banking Ombudsman which was rightly rejected the complainant's complaint. The only option before the complainant is to challenge th order of the Ombudsman and he cannot choose an alternate remedy by approaching the Forum. It is true that the father of the complainant had approached the third opposite party for getting an educational loan under the Model Educational Loan Scheme (Federal Special Vidya Loan Scheme) for the complainant without any collateral security. He also informed that the college authorities had demanded the entire course fee of Rs. 6.40 lakhs and he required this amount in lumpsum single payment. The model Educational Loan Scheme is intended for meritorious students only and the complainant admittedly had obtained less than 50% marks in Mathematics in his qualifying plus two examination. Moreover, as per the terms of the Vidya Loan Scheme only the initial expenses like admission fee, entrance fee, caution deposit, security deposit could be released at the time of admission and all other expenses like tuition fee, hostel fee, cost of book, uniform etc. could be released only at the beginning of each semester. Neither the complainant nor his father had at any point of time applied for the loan as alleged in the complaint. The opposite parties admitted that they have issued educational loan to one Alvin Varghese son of N.I. Varghese an employee of this bank. He has availed the loan under another scheme wherein collateral security is mandatory which he had fulfilled also. The granting of loan to the employees and general public are under different schemes and conditions. The complainant cannot obtain the loan applied as a matter of right and the sanctioning of loan is always within the discretion of the bank and subject to the conditions. The non-grant of financial accommodation or loan by a bank does not amounting to deficiency of service. The complainant is not a consumer of the Federal bank and so there is no legal obligation for the bank to render any service to him. Even in case where the bank has done any service if the service is not hired for consideration.

3. The complainant and the opposite parties appeared through counsel. The complainant adduced only documentary evidence. Exts. A1 to A7 and X1 to X7 were marked on his side. The 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW1. We heard both sides.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get educational loan from the opposite parties?

3. Compensation and costs, if any?

5. Point No. i. :- The opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The case of the complainant is that he submitted loan application before the 3^rd opposite party. On behalf of the complainant Ext. A2 copy of the loan application was marked. But the said document does not prove that the complainant had actually submitted the original of Ext. A2 before the opposite parties. Moreover, there is no evidence before us to show that that the complainant paid consideration to the opposite party as per the sub clause 3 of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. For satisfying the said condition in Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant ought to have paid consideration to the opposite parties while availing service from them. But the complainant failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that he had paid any consideration to the opposite parties. It is well known that the consideration by definition can be either a benefit to the promiser or detriments suffered by the promisee. In the aforementioned reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of October 2011.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========