D.O.F. 19.01.2011
D.O.O. 21.12.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011.
C.C.No.31/2011
E.V. Narayanan,
Nr. Govt. Hospital, : Complainant
Kokkanisseri,
Payyannur
The Manager,
Punjab National Bank : Opposite Party
Payyannur.
(Rep. By Adv. C.K. Rathnakaran)
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing opposite party to disburse the loan and to pay ` 25,000 as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief are as follows: Complainant approached opposite party for Educational Loan and opposite party agreed to grant. He has furnished all documents and paid process fee. But at the last moment opposite party refused to disburse the loan. Loan was sanctioned but refused without any reason. Since it is refused at the last moment it caused much mental agony and hardship to complainants. The last date of remitting tuition fee was on 31.12.2010 and complainant could not arrange fund. He has no other way except approaching private financiers. Opposite party could have informed it earlier so as to enable the complainant to make alternative arrangements to pay the tuition fee. Since there is no justifiable reason for refund there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the averments of the complainant. The brief facts of the version are as follows : The averment that complainant has furnished all relevant document and bank refused to disburse the loan without any reason and complainant could not arrange fund are all false. A student is eligible for educational loan for study in an institution having approval or recognition / affiliation by the competent authority for the course. So loan was sanctioned to him in principle with condition to submit the approval paper of the institute. Complainant’s daughter approached opposite party for an educational loan for coaching classes at a Centre of Kottarakara for writing C.A. Exam. As per the documents available the said tuition centre is not an authorized centre of the institute. Such coaching classes are not eligible for educational loan. Terms and conditions of educational loan were explained to complainant. The loan was sanctioned since complainant has informed that the coaching centre was a recognized centre and the document will be produced. But amount was not released as the complainant could not produce the recognition certificate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above issues the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant/PW1, DW1, Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 to B4.
Admittedly complainant approached opposite party/Bank for the education loan for his daughter, who intended to appear for C.A. The case of the complainant is that all the documents were produced before the bank and thus the loan was sanctioned but the amount was not released without valid reason. Whereas, opposite party contended that the education loan can be given for the study in an institution having approval or recognition/ affiliation by the competent authority for the course. As per the available documents the institution where the daughter of the complainant undergoing coaching classes is a tuition centre which is not recognized by competent authority. Such coaching classes are not eligible for educational loans. Loan was sanctioned on the assurance of complainant. But amount could not be released since the recognition certificate has not been produced by the complainant.
Complainant produced Ext.A1 document dated 27.12.10 which is the cash receipt issued by opposite party. He has adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit in tune with his pleadings. He has stated in affidavit evidence that he was produced all the documents demanded by opposite party. But he has not detailed anywhere what are the documents he had submitted before opposite party. It has specifically contended by the opposite party that they did not release the loan amount since complainant had failed to produced the recognition certificate of the institution where his daughter had been undergoing training. In the cross examination when the question that the reason for not releasing the amount of loan was that the institution where his daughter was studying was not a recognized institution put to the complainant/PW1 the answer was “F\n-¡-dn-bnÃ, A§n-s\-bmWv AhÀ ]n¶oSv ]d-ªX.v” This answer reveals that the complainant had not produced any such document before opposite party to show that the alleged institution was a recognized one by the Competent Authority.
The opposite party has adduced evidence by his chief affidavit that the tuition centre of complainant’s daughter was not a recognized institution and such institutions are not eligible to get education loan. Opposite party stated that as per Bank’s guide lines on education loan, a student is eligible for education loan for study in an institution having approval or recognition or affiliation of the competent authority for the course. Opposite party has taken this plea from the very beginning, which was not challenged by complainant. The evidence goes to show that the complainant has neither produced the certificate of recognition nor produced any other document so as to prove that bank is liable to release the loan amount taking into consideration the documents produced by the complainant. On reliance upon the discussion reported in 2011(2) KLT 922 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala the Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the bank should be liberal in granting education loan since it has a major role in promoting and fulfilling the national objectives. But it cannot be ignored the fact that complainant has the legal duty to produce relevant documents enabling the bank to grant the loan. Complainant has no case that he has produced documents to prove the institution, where his daughter was studying was one recognized by the appropriate authority. Without discharging the necessary obligation on the part of complainant it is not possible to attribute deficiency in service upon the bank for not granting loan. The issue raised in the above cited case is whether the bank could refuse education loan directing the applicant to approach the branch nearest to their residence. Herein the question is withregard to the relevant document in respect of the institution where she had been under going the coaching. Whether it is recognized or not is the relevant question. Complainant did not make any details regarding the same. He did not even say the institution is a recognized one. In case recognition is not necessary the complainant should have taken such a plea and adduce evidence to that effect. Hence the facts of the case above cited has no direct application to the case in hand.
In the above cited case the Manager, Syndicate Bank and others Vs. M. Shankara Narayana Bhat & Another the opposite party refused the loan without any reason. Herein opposite party has a definite case that opposite party has not produced the recognition certificate of the educational institution for which complainant did place any satisfactory answer. In fact complainant kept silence regarding the question of recognition of the institution. So the above decision is not directly applicable in the facts of this case. When the question asked what was the reason for denial of the loan DW1 specifically answered that “Recognised BWv F¶v ImWn¨v documents lmP-cm-¡m-¯Xp sImmWv tem¬ \ntj-[n-¨-Xv.” Hence it is left the complainant to prove that either it is not necessary or else to produce the relevant document to prove that the concerned institution is a recognized one. Complaint except keeping silence did not respond to this aspect at any point of time. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in denial of the loan. Issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant.
In the result, complainant is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Sd/- sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Receipt dated 27.12.2010.
Exhibits for the opposite parties
B1. Application for education loan to Punjab National Bank
B2. Prospectus of AIAT.
B3. Affidavit of the complainant and his daughter.
B4. Statement of accounts
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
DW1. Avinash P. Nair
Witness examined for Court
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
