Karnataka

Kolar

CC/38/2022

Mr.Ashok Kumar.V - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing: 18/08/2022

Date of Order: 07/03/2023

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES,KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 07^thDAY OF MARCH 2023

SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 38 OF 2022

Ashok Kumar.V,

Aged About 38 Years,

S/o. Late M.Venkatesh,

Resident of Bhuvanahalli

Village, Yellasandra Post,

Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.Syed Akbar, Advocate)                          ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager, Canara Bank,

Bangarpet Branch , No.1,

Santhe Maidan, Kolar Road,

Bangarpet-563 114.

(Rep. by Sri. Kusuma Krishnamurthy, Advocate)

 

2) The Chief Manager,

Canara Bank, Circle Office,

No.86, Spencer Towers,

M.G.Road, Bangalore-560001.

(Ex-parte)                                                                       …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, LADY MEMBER

01.        The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP Nos.1 & 2 alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the Ops to refund the excess amount recovered with compensation.

02.  The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the permanent resident of Buvanahalli Village, Budikote Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk and presently residing at Bombay as he is working in NSE company situated at Bombay from 16.04.2015 to till date.  The complainant approached OP No.1 seeking loan for pursuing his higher education in M.Sc. information technology at KEELE University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom, under Vidya Sagar Scheme.  It is stated that by considering his application, OP No.1 has sanctioned loan vide loan account No.0485651005487 for an amount of Rs.14,34,000/- vide sanction letter dated: 05.09.2008  and for security of the loan amount complainant was also given two vacant sites measuring 20ft x 30ft, standing in the name of Savithramma and 30ft x 40 ft in the name of K.N. Somashekar and a house property belongs to H. Ramesh Babu as a security and as guarantors.

02(a).      The complainant had utilized the said loan amount to an extent of Rs.10,77,000/- only.  The amount disbursed of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on 08.10.2008 and sum of  Rs.2,77,000/- was on 01.01.2009.  Out of loan amount Rs.14,34,000/- complainant utilized amount of Rs. 10,77,000/- remaining amount of Rs. 3,57,000/- he has not taken.

02(b)  As per the terms of the loan agreement, the loan repayment schedule is for 60 months and EMI was fixed at Rs.39,560/-at the floating interest rate of 11.75% per annum, and this was a simulated EMI, assuming entire amount Rs.14,34,000/- is disbursed in one go, and there will be no payment made for 24 month holiday period, and additional 01 year time duration to start repayment and loan agreement, Rs.17,88,562/-.  As per the schedule of repayment and loan agreement, the EMI for the said loan should commence from the month of September-2011.            

02(c) Further the complainant had made a written representation to the 1^st OP bank to restructure the EMI as per the loan amount availed by him i.e., Rs.10,77,000/-, the complainant after many number of requests made orally, letters and through mails had not restructured the said schedule of EMI, though the Vidya Sagar Scheme had provisions to provide students to repays the loan till 07 years of tenure.  The complainant started to repay the loan amount through his savings bank account to his saving bank Account no. 0485101024107 and requested the 1^st OP-BANK to pull the funds from his saving bank account and adjust towards the EMI of said loan.  The lethargic and willful default act of 1^st OP Bank and not restructuring   the EMI for the loan  amount availed pulling the funds from the saving bank account of complainant, had made him defaulter in payment of the loan availed and made him to pay extravagant penalty for the willful act of OP-Bank.

 02(d) Further it is submitted that, the 1^st OP-Bank had sent notices and threatened the complainant for repayment of his loan without obliging his request of restructuring the EMI amount as per the loan amount loan. In the month of June-2012, the 1^st OP-Bank had given a restructured EMI payment schedule for the amount of Rs. 15,94,657/- and interest rate chargeable at Rs.16.5/% and EMI of Rs.39,204/- and mentioned there that the EMI should be paid from the month of July 2012.  This restructured EMI is complete breach of the loan terms and contra to the condition of Vidya Sagar Scheme.

02(e) In addition, as per the terms agreed the loan amount  Rs.10,77,000/- along with simple interest for was to be repaid with interest in 60 EMI’S of approximate to Rs.32,353/-, the total repayment amount with interest should be 19,41,180/- (considering maximum interest rate 11.75%), and the complainant paid total amount of Rs 23,92,389/- out of the afore said Rs.19,41,180/- On the contrary, the OP-Bank have restructured the whole repayment schedule, making the complainant to repay the amount in 84 EMI for Rs.32,583/- by showing that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.14,34,000/-. Simulated principal amount considered for delivering the Rs. 32,583/- EMI at 11,75% interest rate for 84 months during is Rs.19,21,251/-.

02(f) On 08.11.2012, the 1^st OP-Bank had forwarded a letter intimating the complainant that, the interest subsidy scheme on educational loan as per the circular No.343/2012 dated 03.11.2012 issued by ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. As per the terms of the circular this benefit can be availed by those students belonging to economically weaker section with annual/gross income of parents is not more than Rs. 4,50,000/- per year from all sources. The complainant had also furnished the required Income Certificated obtained from concerned Thasildhar along with representation dated 24/06/2012 vide reference at no.3 supra that  the parental annual income from all source is Rs.1,53,480/-. Hence, the complainant is also entitled for interest subsidy.  The copy of the aforesaid Representation along with income certificate is herewith produced.

02(g) In spite of request made by the complainant to address his grievance of charging higher interest rate to his education loan, the 1^st OP-Bank had sent him with a notice invoking SARFAST Act for attachment of the property obtained as surety for his education loan.  Though the complainant belongs to community of depressed class, he was charged with the interest at the higher rate than actual interest rate.  In these circumstances and loan as per the EMI given by the 1^st OP-Bank for the reason not to embarrass the sureties who trusted him and mortgaged their property for the completion of higher studies by the complainant.

02(h)        Finally in the month of the September -2013, the complainant started to repay his  loan at the interest rate charged best known to the 1^st OP-Bank and completed the payment of the loan amount in the of January-2018.  The complainant had availed the loan of Rs.10,77,000/- vide loan account number -04851005487 under Vidya Sagar Scheme Education Loan, which was offered for the students from the depressed class to pursue their higher education under subsidy scheme.   The loan availed by the complainant was only Rs.10,77,000/- and repayment was made more than 23,00,000/- Lakhs, including penal interest, interest charged for loan, etc., which is not acceptable without any fault of the complainant.  The complainant had paid excess amount towards the discharge of his loan for the reason the OP No.1 Bank made him to pay the loan amount at the interest at higher rates.  The complainant issued legal notice to the OP-Bank on 30.11.2018 including reminding notice dated: 28.07.2022, but the OP-Bank have not complied.  Hence this complaint.

03.           On service of notice from this Commission OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its version, but OP No.2 did not appear and failed to contest the proceedings.  Hence OP No.2 placed as Ex-parte.

04.           In the version OP No.1 has  admitted several facts that complainant stated in his complaint i.e., OP - bank sanctioned education loan to the complainant sum of Rs. 14,34,000/- on 05.09.2008 with sureties of Smt. Savithramma, K.M.Somashekar, and Ramesh. Furthermore OP admitted that, complainant utilized loan amount to an extent of Rs.10,77,000/- out of 14,34,000/-.  On 08.10.2008 sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-was disbursed and on 01.01.2009 a sum of Rs. 2,77,000/- was disbursed. O.P admitted that the repayment of the loan amount for 60 EMI of Rs.39,560/- at the rate of 11.75%P.A. The complainant had given letter to restructure EMI for educational loan amount a sum of Rs.10,77,000/- which was given by the O.P bank to the complainant.

04(a).       OP contention in his version is that, Op bank has charged interest @ 16.75%p.a by mistake for some months later on the excess charged interest was reversed to the complainant’s account to an extent of 53,040/- on 20.12.2012 and the complainant was well know it.  The complainant has not produced the Income certificated as on the date of loan sanctioning time.  The loan was sanctioned in 2008 complainant produced income certificate in the 2012. So complainant is not subject to any benefit as per the ruled of Government of India.

04(b).       The O.P bank issued a notice on 16.07.2013 informing the complainant that is overdue a sum of Rs. 99,518/- otherwise they may have to proceed to Surfaesi Act. The O.P also contended that the complainant has not paid the monthly installments regularly for several years, only on the demand of the bank the complainant pay the loan amount, as such the interest is accumulated.   The complainant account on several occasions have become over due.

04(c).       The bank has also restructured the repayments of the loan account of complainant. The OP bank also submits that they charged interest from 01.09.2008 to September 2018.  The O.P bank charged lesser rate of interest from 2012 as agreed rate of interest which fact is also within the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant without verifying the account extract and the rate of interest charged by the bank has rushed to court making false allegation against the bank.  The bank did not collect any excess amount from the complainants nor charged excess interest to the complainant. The OP bank followed the instruction of their Head Office guide lines and charged the interest to the loan account.  The complainant has filed frivolous complaint to make a wrongful gain from the OP bank.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.   

05.   In order to prove the case of the complainant and the OP No.1, both parties i.e., complainant and OP No.1 have filed their affidavit evidence along with supporting documents.

 

06.   Heard arguments of both complainant and OP No.1.

 

07.   On the basis the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record, the following points will arise for our consideration:-

           (1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

(2) Whether the complainant has proved    deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2?

(3)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought for in the complaint?

(4)   What Order?

08.   Our findings on the above points are:-

             POINT No.(1):-            Is in the Negative

            POINT Nos. (2) & (3):- Are in the Affirmative  

             POINT No.(4):-        As per the final order

                                           for the following:-

 

REASONS

09.     POINT NO.(1):-    The question of limitation comes forefront among other points for consideration and hence this point taken initially for consideration.  That the complainant in support of complaint also filed delay condonation application with affidavit.  On perusal of the application and its supporting affidavit it is stated that the complainant is working at National Stock Exchange at Mumbai as a Senior Manager in I.T. Projects Department, from 16.04.2015 to till date.  Due to this complainant sent written and email communication to OP-Bank for providing him corrected Loan details and refund the excess amount collected from his from September-2011 to December-2017.  Further complainant states that, he sent legal notice to the OP –Bank in the month of November-2018 including the last reminding notice dated: 29.07.2022 and waiter for response from OP, but went in vain.  Unfortunately due to Covid-19 complainant was unable to come to his village to move ahead his case.  Further complainant states that, as NSE is a National Economy Critical Company in Covid-19 hit duration Feb-2020 to April/May-2022, Human Resource had strict norms for all employees to not to move out from this homes, base location i.e., Mumbai and he has produced the Organization Travel guidance details sent to all employees by HR i.e., Document – C19(a) & Document – C.20.  On perusal of Document –C.20 it clearly discloses that, the complainant had strict instructions from his higher authorities i.e., NSC Operating advisory that, employees need to be available at their base location and not to travel to hometown even while working under the Work from Home format till 10.01.2022.  Per contra OP No.1 by filing objections contended that, SOP of the Hon’ble Supreme Court directions only for appeals and not suits. However on perusal of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it reads thus:-

“69. (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

However on perusing the application along with affidavit and document placed on record, it clearly shows that, as per the instructions given by his employer he could not able to file the present complaint in time and hence he had filed the same on 18.08.2022.

10.     It worth to note that, the complainant in his  affidavit shown the cause why he has not filed the complaint well in time, as discussed supra based on his affidavit and it is sufficient for us to satisfy to condone the delay in filing the complaint. Accordingly we answered this point in the Negative.   

11.     POINT NOs.(2) & (3):- These points are interlinked to each other and hence taken up together for common discussion, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of reasoning.

12.        On perusing of the complaint it is the grievance of the complainant that, he availed study loan for abroad  higher education in M.Sc. information technology at KEELE University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom under Vidya Sagar Scheme, from the OP Bank and OP bank had sanctioned the loan vide loan account bearing No.0485651005487 for an amount of Rs.14,34,000/- on 05/09/2008 after obtaining two vacant sites measuring 20 ft x 30 ft in the name of Savithrammma and 30 ft * 40 ft in the name of K.N. Somashekar and a house in the name of H.Ramesh Babu as a security for the said education loan.  But the complainant had utilized the loan amount at the extent of Rs.10,77,000/- only. The OP Bank disbursed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on 08/10/2008 and a sum of Rs.2,77,000/- on 01/01/2009. The complainant did not utilized the remaining amount of Rs.3,57,000/- out of the total sanctioned loan  amount.  As per the terms of the loan agreement, the loan repayment schedule is for 60 months and EMI was fixed at Rs.39,560/- at the floating interest rate of 11.75% per annum, and this was a simulated EMI, assuming entire Rs.14,34,000/- is disbursed in one go, and there will be no payment made for 24 month holiday period, and additional 01 year time duration to start repayment.  The principal amount for the simulated EMI considering 03 years of holiday period comes to Rs.17,88,562/-.  As per the schedule of repayment and loan agreement, EMI for the said loan should commence from the month of September 2011.

13.        The main allegation of the complainant is that, the complainant had made many requests by orally and in written to state that strangely enough in your series of letters dated 11/02/2011, 08/11/2011, 09/06/2012, 18/08/2012, 06/11/2012, 21/03/2013, 05/09/2013 and through mails to Op bank that, to restructure the EMI as per loan amount availed by him i.e., Rs.10,77,000/-.  But OP bank did not restructure the EMI for the said loan amount i.e., Rs.10,77,000/-. On perusing document No:5 letter dated on 18/06/2012 it clearly shows that, complainant made  request to the Op bank to restructure of EMI for loan amount i.e., Rs.10,77,000/- which is he availed.  For that letter document No:6 OP bank replied on 18/08/2012 for your request restructured with 84 months repayments instead of 60 months for a sum of Rs.14,34,000/- instead of Rs.10,77,000/-. The OP bank replied on 06/11/2012 to the complainant’s letter dated: 22/10/2012 i.e., they will revert back the complainant all the details which was asked by the complainant, the details of the loan and EMI and interest of the loan in the end of that month.

14.        OP bank strongly contended in its version that, the complainant has not produced the Income certificate as on the date of loan sanctioning time.  The loan was sanctioned in 2008 and the complainant produced income certificate in the year 2012. So complainant is not subject to any benefit as per the rules of Government of India.

15.        On perusing of the Document No: 8 i.e., letter sent by the Op bank on 08/11/2012 to the complainant to inform that, to furnish the income certificate which was attested by Thasildhar of his parental income for all source is less than Rs.4.50 lakhs to implementing the interest subsidy on education loan availed from 01^st April 2009 onwards.  The benefits under the scheme would be applicable to those students belonging to economically weaker section with an annual gross parental/family income with upper limit of Rs.4.50 lakhs per year from all sources and Op bank is to enable to send the same to their higher authorities for claiming interest subsidy. The complainant sent a letter along with complainant parental annual Income certificate which was given by the Thasildhar i.e., Document No:9  which clearly shows that, complainant parental annual income was Rs.1,50,000/- and he belongs to the schedule caste (i.e. Bhovi). With respect to the letter sent by the OP bank to the complainant to furnish the parental Income certificate, then the complainant sent a thanking letter along with his parental Income certificate given by the Thasildhar.

16.        During the pendency of the loan in question as seen from the record, document No: 8 in the event that, the OP bank itself intimated the complainant to produce income certificate in order to avail the monitory benefit of as per the scheme of Government of India.  Hence the complainant produced the income certificate as evident from Document No:8.  But the Op bank did not accept the same on the ground that, it has been not produced at the time of obtaining loan.  It is noteworthy to mention that, the bank has not placed any record are evidence to show that, the monitory benefit by the government scheme particular.  Whether the prospective or retrospective.  The law is very clear, when two views are possible the view which fevers the customer has to be considered.  Hence non-honoring the benefit given by the government as per document No:8, it comes to deficiency in service.  Document No; 9 i.e., the complainant sent a letter dated 02/11/2012 to the OP bank requesting an update on the below things:-

1. Restructure loan interest rate (refer the attached letter from bank).
2. Application status of “ 6% of loan interest amount paid by state Government for all education loan”.
3.  Request to provide complete loan details from 05/09/2008 to till date.
4. Referring to our previous letters could you please provide us on update on the following (education loan No: 048651005487), with this above said letter complainant attached the copies.

1. letter received from you regarding my loan restructure,
2. previous restructured loan, details (2 attachments),
3. request letter sent by us for “6% of loan interest amount paid by State Government for all education loans”
4. Loan sanction letter.

17.        From the above said document Nos. 1 to 9 which are produced by the complainant which clearly shows that, the complainant was regular contact with the OP bank and several requests were made to restructure the loan EMI and furnished all the documents to the OP bank which are required for the benefits under the scheme of Vidya Sagar education loan but the OP bank had failed to do its good service to its customer. On perusing the document No: 10 it clearly shows that, how the OP bank on 24/07/2013 sent a Final Notice to the complainant?  In that notice OP bank mentioned the Loan account No: 0485651005487 with us ; Limit; Rs. 14,34,000/- Liability: Rs. 16,31,658/-; over dues Rs.97,594/- + undebited interest.  OP bank in this notice mentioned that, the complainant had to clear the overdue in full within 15 days from the date of this letter, failing which the OP bank will be left with no other alternative than to “INVOKE SARFAESI ACT” and attach your property at your cost and risk and also to dispose-of the said mortgaged property in terms of SARFAESI Act guidelines, this above said letter clearly showing the negligent act of the OP bank towards its customer. The complainant from day one requesting the OP bank to restructure his education loan amount EMI for a sum of Rs.10,77,000/- instead of Rs.14,34,000/- which he was availed from the OP bank, but OP bank never did it.  On the contrary, with the oblique motive Op bank mentioned that, the complainant had availed loan of Rs.14,34,000/- which is contrary to the terms agreed and the amount released.

18.           O.P bank itself admitted that, Op bank has charged interest at the rate of 16.75%p.a by mistake for some months later on the excess charged interest was reversed to the complainant’s account to an extent of Rs.53,040/- on 20.12.2012 and the complainant was well known of it.  Document Nos. 3 and 4 produced by the Op bank clearly shows that, OP bank refunded a sum of Rs.  53,040/- to the complainant account dated 20/12/2012.

19.           The Op bank did not considered the several requisitions made by the complainant to restructure the EMI of the education loan amount  a sum of Rs.10,77,000/- instated of a sum of Rs.14,34,000/-.  The above said act of the Op bank shows that, how they are negligent in giving its service to its customers.

20.           The Op bank submits that, the complainant was not regular in payment of EMIs.  But Op bank failed to prove that complainant was not regular in making payment of EMIs in time.

21.           On perusing the documents which were produced by both the parties which clearly shows that, the complainant was regularly contacting with the OP bank for restructure of loan amount and sought details about the interest of the loan amount and further details to known how the OP bank had calculated the complainant’s education loan amount i.e., interest from 2008 to till the date, but Op bank did not give any details to the complainant.  It clearly shows the deficiency of service on the part of the Op bank.  Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank and it is just and proper to direct the OP bank to refund the amount of Rs.4,51,209/- to the complainant which was recovered in excess by the Op bank and accordingly we answered Point Nos.2 & 3 are in the Affirmative.

 

22.   POINT NO.4:-  In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 to 3 and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed with cost against OP Nos.1 & 2.

02.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4,51,209/- towards the excess amount recovered from the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order.

03.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.

04.   Further the OPs are also directed to submit the compliance report before this Commission within 45 days from the date of the order.

05.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 07^th DAY OF MARCH 2023)

 

 

 

          LADY MEMBER                   PRESIDENT