Karnataka
Kolar
CC/41/2015
Siddiq Moinuddin Adil - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Manager, SBM, - Opp.Party(s)
21 Jan 2016
ORDER
Date of Filing: 17/08/2015 & 20082015
Date of Order: 21/01/2016
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DC OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR
Dated: 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2016
PRESENT
SRI NB KULKARNI, BSc, LLB,(Spl) …… PRESIDENT
SRI R CHOWDAPPA, BA, LLB …… MEMBER
SMT AC LALITHA, BAL, LLB …… LADY MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 35 OF 2015
A Roshni,
D/o Syed Afsar,
#41, 1st Cross Lazar Road,
MK Pallya, Frazer Town,
BANGALORE.560 005
(Represented through her Father
Sri Syed Afsar) … The Complainant
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 36 OF 2015
Chandni,
D/o Syed Afsar,
#41, 1st Cross Lazar Road,
MK Pallya, Frazer Town,
BANGALORE.560 005
(Represented through her Father
Sri Syed Afsar) … The Complainant
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 37 OF 2015
Sneha,
D/o Haridass,
#28/A, 2nd Cross Palarnagar,
BEML Nagar Post,
KGF
(Represented through her Father
SriHaridass) … The Complainant
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 38 OF 2015
Nazia Banu,
D/o Aslam Pasha,
#18, 8th Cross, Ganeshpuram,
Robertsonpet, KGF
(Represented through her Father
Sri Aslam Pasha) … The Complainant
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 40 OF 2015
Afshan Jabeen,
D/o Abidmuinuddin,
# B Type Quarters BEML Nagar,
BEML Nagar Post,
KGF
(Represented through her Father
Sri Abidmuinuddin) … The Complainant
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 41 OF 2015
Md Siddiq Moinuddin Adil,
S/o Md Abidmuinuddin,
# A type Quarters, BEML Nagar,
BEML Nagar Post, KGF
(Represented through his Father
Sri Md Abidmuinuddin) … The Complainant
V/s
(1) The Manager,
State Bank Of Mysore,
BEML Nagar, KGF 563 115
(OP.1 is rep by Sriyuth Kusuma Krishnamurthy,
SRNagesh & HChandra Shekara Advocate)
(2) The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank Of Mysore,
Bangalore Zone 11,
2nd Floor BKG Complex,
Avenue Road, Bangalore5600 02
(OP.2 since placed exparte)
(OP Nos1 & 2 are common in
all these cases) … The Opposite Parties
:COMMON ORDER:
BY SRI NB KULKARNI, PRESIDENT
01 In all these cases the complainants have sought relief of issuance of directions to the ops not to charge any interest on the educational loans during the moratorium (2009.2013) as the same would be paid by the government vide reference NoFNo25(159)/ 2014.IF.11, dated: 13042015, as well, issuance of directions to these Ops to refund Rs25,000/ (in CCNo35/2015), Rs39,240/ (in CCNo36/2015), Rs39,240/ (in CC No37/2015), unascertained in CC No38/2015, Rs25,000/ (in CCNo40/2015), and unascertained in CC No41/2015; as the same were recovered from the respective salaries of the parents, as well, for compensation of Rs1,00,000/, and also issuance of directions to the OP.1 to close the account and to give clearance to transfer the salary to Canara Bank
02 The brief facts of the case:
(a) It is contention of the complainant in CC No35/2015 that, she availed professional education loan from Op.1 during 2009.2010 vide account No64029851737 and the OP.1 resorted to make recovery of the interest from the salary account of the parent, which was unwarranted And that after litigating the OP.1 had re credited the amount to the account of the parent whereas the liability of the interest was shown as due in the account, by reversing the demand made for interest
(b) It is contended that huge EMI of Rs3,678/ per lakh was claimed, whereas through RTI when the appellate authority was approached OP.1 declared EMI as of Rs2,215/ and the rate of interest 13% per annum And that in similar cases Vijaya Bank charged interest at the rate of 1205% for Girl students with regard to professional education loans
(c) In CC No36/2015 similar are the averments made in the complaint, whereas the educational loan availed was during the academic years 2009.2011 vide Account No6409851737
(d) In CC No37/2015 similar are the averments made in the complaint, whereas the educational loan availed was with regard to academic years 2008.2009 vide Account No 65035594951
(e) In CC No38/2015 similar are the averments made in the complaint, whereas the educational loan availed was with regard to academic years 2008.2011 vide Account No 64037490111
(f) In CC No40/2015 similar are the averments made in the complaint, whereas the educational loan availed was with regard to academic years 2009.2011 vide Account No 54029230099
(g) In CC No41/2015 similar are the averments made in the complaint, whereas the educational loan availed was with regard to academic years 2009.2010 vide Account No 54029230099
03 We find the averments made in the complaint are not exact with regard to the facts and figures as far as the interest charged; and credited back to the respective accounts of the parents However hereafter at appropriate stage we give a detailed picture as to what were the interest amounts claimed by the OP.1 in each of the cases by re crediting the amounts in the accounts of the respective parents which stood reversed as the dues in the very educational loan accounts of these complainants
04 We are bound to overlook the ambiguity in the pleadings maintained by these complainants as they have submitted the complaints in person through their respective parents
05 Along with the complaint in CC No35/2015 the complainant has submitted the following Xerox copies of the 12 documents:
(i) Letter dated: 31082015 issued by OP 1 to the complainant
(ii) Print outs taken from internet dated: 27 & 29122011 issued from OP 1 pertaining to CSIS ie, Central Scheme to provide interest subsidy for educational loan claim for the period from 01042009 to 31032010
(iii) Statement from 01082011 to 27122011 issued by OP 1 to the complainant
(iv) Information sought under the RTI Act issued by Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi, dated: 02032015 to the complainant
(v) Covering letter issued by the Director (HE), GOI, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Dept of Higher Education, New Delhi, dated: 25052010 along with self explanatory letter dated: 21042010 from Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary, GOI, Ministry of Human Resource Development, addressed to The Chairman Cum Managing Directors of all scheduled members Banks of IBA, pertaining to interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on Educational Loans taken by the students
(vi) Information sought under RTI Act, dated: 26082014 issued from Vijaya Bank to the complainant
(vii) Application dated: 04082014 under RTI Act issued by SriSyed Afsar to Vijaya Bank, Bangalore
(viii) Reply letter given by the State Bank of Mysore, Doom Light Circle, Kolar, dated: 18072013, to SmtAChandini, pertaining to information sought for under RTI Act
(ix) Letter dated: 30032014 issued from OP 1 to Miss AChandni
(x) Statement copy showing account nos, and particulars regarding name of the loan account holders and amount
(xi) Brochure copy issued from Department of Higher Education pertaining to educational loans up to Rs5 lakhs at just 6% interest pa
(xii) Reply letter given by the State Bank of Mysore, dated: 22102011, to Sri Syed Afsar, regarding to the information sought for under the RTI Act
Similar are the documents submitted by the complainants in rest of the cases
06 In CC Nos35, 36, 37, 38 of 2015 on 14092015 OP Nos1 & 2 were placed exparte; whereas in all these cases only on 30092015 OP 1 appeared before us and got the exparte order set aside and thus started participating in the proceedings to resist the claim of these complainants With regard to CC Nos 40 & 41/2015 it is worth to note that, both these OPs were placed exparte on 21092015 in as much as they had remained absent in spite of service of notice through RPAD, whereas, in these cases only the OP 1 did appear on 14102015 and got exparte order set aside and thus started participating in the proceedings to resist claim of the complainants
07 The OP 1 has put in independent written versions in each of the cases However taking up the very same contentions
(a) It is admitted with regard to the said loans given and the interest claimed through respective parents of these complainants, which however came to be re credited to their accounts Further this OP 1 in all these cases is to maintain that, the said claim for interest was shown as increase in the liability in the educational loans given to each one of these complainants
(b) However it is conceded with regard to the sanction of EMI as in sum of Rs2,250/ However it is denied that the said Vijaya Bank was to charge interest at the rate of 1205% per annum for girl students with regard to the professional education loan
(c) With regard to the specific claim of these complainants seeking exemption from liability to pay interest as the Government would provide subsidy from 2009 to 2013 vide said reference, this OP 1 is to contend that, it is not within knowledge
(d) Further it is contended that, as the interest amount is paid back to the parents the present complaints are liable to be dismissed It is also contended that, the scheme relied is not applicable for the case of the complainants So contending, dismissal of these complaints with costs has been sought
08 In each of these cases, the respective complainants have submitted their affidavit evidence On 30092015 the complainant in CC No35/2015 has submitted following five documents:
i. Notarized copy RTI obtained on 09102014 along with brosher
ii. Notarized copy RTI obtained on 02032015
iii. Notarized copy certified copy order passed by the district consumer court in CC No67/2012, dated: 28072012
iv. Notarized copy RTI obtained on 26082014 by the Vijaya Bank
v. Original letter dated: 31082015 the Opp Party
Similar are the documents submitted in rest of all these cases
09 On 08012016 the said representatives of the complainants have submitted following three documents:
i. Statement of loan sanctioned and other particulars as prepared by the Chartered Accountant
ii. Details of accounts with regard to rate of interest maintained date wise as prepared by the Chartered Accountant
iii. And the Ledger Extract
10 On behalf of the OP 1 on 16122015 SmtBC Nagalakshmi, being the Chief Manager has submitted affidavit evidence in each of these cases and on this day the Learned counsel appearing for OP 1 with Memo has submitted ledger extracts
11 On 19122015 in each of these cases the learned counsel appearing for the OP 1 has submitted Memo giving details of the subsidy credited in the loan accounts of each one of these complainants
12 On 19122015 itself the learned counsel appearing for the OP 1 has submitted the following three documents:
i. Circular No30/2009.10, dated: 26082009
ii. Circular No49/2008.09, dated: 16022009
iii. Circular No72/2013.14, dated: 22032014
13 On 16012016 the learned counsel appearing for the OP.1 in each of these cases has submitted with Memo systematic particulars with regard to commencement and concluding dates of disbursement of educational loans to each of these complainants with additional information also
14 On 18012016 the learned counsel appearing for the OP.1 in all these cases with Memo has submitted certificate declaring that, education loans subsidy has been given to the loan accounts for the education period under the State Government up to 31122012 and from 01012013 Central Government subsidy is credited
15 Heard the oral augments as advanced by respective representatives of these complainants and the learned counsel appearing for OP.1 in all these cases
16 In view of the common facts involved these cases have been clubbed so as to pass common order, (vide reference made in the proceedings of the order sheet dated: 18012016)
17 Therefore following are the common points that do arise for our consideration in all these cases:.
1 Whether both the Ops in general and the OP.1 in particular are and is guilty of deficiency in service with regard to providing benefit of the subsidy covering professional education loans availed by these complainants?
2 If so, whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought for?
3 What order?
18 Our findings on the above stated points in all these cases are:.
POINT 1: In the Affirmative
POINT 2: Partly Affirmative
POINT 3: As per final order for the following:.
REASONS
POINTS 1 & 2:.
19 To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time
(a) Before entering into discussion with regard to facts in issue, we deem it essential, at this juncture to state indisputable aspects On the strength of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, it would become indisputable that, A Roshni, the complainant, in CC No35/2015, Chandni the complainant in CC No36/2015, had raised a loan to pursue their studies for BE in computer science, Sneha, the complainant in CC No37/2015 had raised loan to pursue her studies for BE in Information Science, Nazia Banu, the complainant in CC No38/2015 had raised loan for perusing her studies for BE in Information Science, Afshan Jabeen, the complainant in CC No40/2015 had raised the loan for pursuing her studies for BE in electronics; whereas, Siddiq Moinuddin Adil, the complainant in CC No41/2015 had raised loan to pursue studies for BE in Information Science
(b) It is also a fact undeniable that the OP.1 had started collecting interest from the salary of the parents of these complainants which was an unwarranted approach Therefore the parents of these complainants were forced to file complaints before this Forum challenging the deficiency in service Consequently as per order in CC No67/2012 which was challenged in Appeal No1712/2012 and on 28032013 the order dated: 28072012 passed by this Forum was upheld And ultimately in Execution Application No132/2012 a sum of Rs39,240/. came to be paid to the parent SriSyed Afsar on 26112013 and the said execution case came to be closed on 10012014 And this development is pertaining to present CC No35/2015 and 36/2015
(c) In CC No55/2013 on 05022014 sum of Rs25,200/. came to be paid to Sri Hridas the parent, and on 07022014 the said case was disposed.off by way of settlement and this is pertaining to the present CC No37/2015 wherein the complainant is Sneha
(d) Pertaining to present CC No38/2015 wherein the complainant is Nazia Banu, her father Sri Aslam Pasha had preferred CC No53/2013 which came to be settled on payment of Rs27,150/. on 05022014 and thus on 07022014 the matter came to be settled
(e) Coming to present CC Nos 40/2015 and 41/2015 wherein complainants are Afshan Jabeen and Siddiq Moinuddin Adil their father Sri Mohammed Abidmuinuddin had preferred CC No54/2013 and he was paid Rs26,700/. and Rs16,500/. on 05022014, thus the matter came to be settled on 07022014
(f) And it is very much pertinent to note that, OP.1 had rectified the mistake by re.crediting the said sums in the accounts of the parents of these complainants which accounts were in SBM, Kolar Branch (Records in CC Nos 67/2012, 53/2013, 54/2013 & 55/2013 were secured only for the purpose of taking judicial notice of the said proceedings)
(g) However it is also a fact that, such re.credits given to the parents were shown as outstanding liabilities in the loan accounts of the present complainants This would mean that, from the day one of the loan being given though phase.wise from such dates itself the OP.1 had started entries in debit column to indicate the liability of these complainants to pay interest Thus this aspect also cannot be denied
(h) So, with the background of these indisputable aspects now we shall have to proceed to ascertain the justification or otherwise of the OP.1 in claiming the said interest as a liability of the present complainants subject to admitted subsidy facilities accorded by the OP.1 voluntarily Therefore we deem it essential to state the particulars of the subsidy facilities given to the complainants, on the strength of the memo dated: 19122015 as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the OP.1
CC No 35/2015
“……The respondent has given interest subsidy in the above case to the complainant at 725% upto 18042013 Later full subsidy is given to the complainant as per the circular issued by their Head Office The following are the particulars of the subsidy amount and date of credit made to their account:.
17082011 Rs 5,81000.
25042012 Rs11,96500. @ 725%
18042013 Rs18,29900.
07022014 Rs9,81500.
17062014 Rs9,80300. Full Subsidy
09072014 Rs4,63400.
.........................
Total is Rs60,32600
==============================================
CC No 36/2015
“……The respondent has given interest subsidy in the above case to the complainant at 650% upto 18042013 Later full subsidy is given to the complainant as per the circular issued by their Head Office The following are the particulars of the subsidy amount and date of credit made to their account:.
17082011 Rs 2,59000.
25042012 Rs 9,40000. @ 650%
18042013 Rs17,25500.
07022014 Rs3,89000.
17062014 Rs3,88600. Full Subsidy
.........................
Total is Rs37,02100
==============================================
CC No 37/2015
“……The respondent has given interest subsidy in the above case to the complainant at 650% upto 18042013 Later full subsidy is given to the complainant as per the circular issued by their Head Office The following are the particulars of the subsidy amount and date of credit made to their account:.
17082011 Rs 2,86000.
25042012 Rs 9,05000. @ 650%
18042013 Rs 8,02000.
07022014 Rs 8,17700.
17062014 Rs 8,16800. Full Subsidy
.........................
Total is Rs55,73700
==============================================
CC No 38/2015
“……The respondent has given interest subsidy in the above case to the complainant at 725% upto 18042013 Later full subsidy is given to the complainant as per the circular issued by their Head Office The following are the particulars of the subsidy amount and date of credit made to their account:.
17082011 Rs 5,25000.
25042012 Rs 19,47000. @ 725%
18042013 Rs 5,52600.
07022014 Rs 2,78300.
17062014 Rs 2,78000. Full Subsidy
09072014 Rs 1,31300.
.........................
Total is Rs37,12200
==============================================
CC No 40/2015
“……The respondent has given interest subsidy in the above case to the complainant at 725% upto 18042013 Later full subsidy is given to the complainant as per the circular issued by their Head Office The following are the particulars of the subsidy amount and date of credit made to their account:.
17082011 Rs 6,49400.
25042012 Rs1,58,45400. @ 725%
18042013 Rs 3,45900.
07022014 Rs 8,28000.
17062014 Rs 8,27000. Full Subsidy
09072014 Rs 3,90900.
.........................
Total is Rs 46,25700
==============================================
CC No 41/2015
“……The respondent has given interest subsidy in the above case to the complainant at 725% upto 18042013 Later full subsidy is given to the complainant as per the circular issued by their Head Office The following are the particulars of the subsidy amount and date of credit made to their account:.
17082011 Rs 2,33000.
25042012 Rs 16,03400. @ 725%
18042013 Rs 16,64500.
07022014 Rs 8,38800.
17062014 Rs 8,37800. Full Subsidy
09072014 Rs 3,96200.
.........................
Total is Rs 55,73700
==============================================
(i) The Circular No30, Paragraph.8 has been relied by the learned counsel appearing for the OP.1 to press in to service that, if similar scheme is implemented by any state government, then claim should be made either to Central or State Government and not to both So contending the learned counsel appearing for the OP.1 maintained that either the scheme sponsored by the Central Government or the scheme sponsored by the State Government would be applicable and not the both simultaneously
(j) Though in the first flush the said submission seems real, a little probe in to the matter would reveal that the contention is devoid of merits For, on 18012016 the very learned counsel appearing for the OP.1 has submitted the certificate issued by the OP.1 which discloses that, the accrued benefits under the State Government scheme came to be given up to 31122012 and from 01012013 the Central Government subsidy has been credited
(k) Therefore indisputably to the very knowledge of the OP.1 there was facility of the scheme sponsored by the State Government and facility of the scheme sponsored by the Central Government, which were bound to be conceded
(l) Moreover the present complainants have placed reliance on document vide DO No11.4/2010.US, dated: 21042010 which is a new Central scheme to provide full interest subsidy during a moratorium on educational loans for students belonging to economically weaker sections with parental family income from all sources of less than 45 lakhs annually And this scheme is extended for the academic year 2009.2010 Therefore 100% subsidy with regard to interest liability during moratorium period should be given, which would mean the academic years period wherein loan is distributed phase.wise and after completion of the academic years up to one year
(m) Secondly, the present complainants by placing reliance on State Government order vide No ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: Er:197:AiÉÆÃAiÉÆÃPÁ 2008 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08092008 (¹éêÀÄgÀ:Er:148:AiÀÄĤPï 2008, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08092008) tried to rely on further facility with regard to rebate or concession in the interest to the extent of 6% per annum on educational loan for professional courses which scheme is applicable from the academic year 2008.2009 and this order is inclusive of engineering courses among others as recognized for the benefit
(n) Therefore the scheme of the State Government is to cover the aspect of liability which would commence from the date of repayment of the said loans by way of EMI’s This would mean that, whatever amount be the rate of interest levied by the OP.1, as against these complainants, according to these complainants, they are entitled to benefit of rebate to the extent of 6% per annum with regard to the liability to pay interest
(o) The said Central Scheme declares that, for the totality of the moratorium period the debtors like the complainants who have availed loans for pursuing their professional courses need not pay any interest
(p) Hence both the schemes are not identical Consequently both these schemes which are favorable to the complainants are bound to be invoked Besides, we repeat as noted above by submitting the said certificate the very OP.1 has admitted in un.equivocal terms with regard to the need and applicability of both the schemes sponsored by the State Government and the Central Government, but has committed error in following the same in letter and spirit
(q) It is not that the OP.1 was totally blind to extend the benefit of the subsidy indeed he has extended it, which is according to us covering the distance rather by less than half way The reasons are simple The said memos giving the details of the subsidy accorded are silent with regard to under what specific schemes and from what period up to what period the said subsidies came to be accorded At any rate we cannot concede to these memos as they do not refer to the said Central Scheme as well the said State Scheme which are not only un.identical but cover altogether different aspects
(r) Therefore it would become essential for us to ascertain the period with regard to disbursement of the said loans phase.wise till the last date And for this purpose we deem it essential to place reliance on the extracts furnished by the learned counsel appearing for the OP.1, which extracts are based on the entries made in the ledger (Reliance placed on such extracts furnished on 16012016)
CC No35/2015 | |||||
06102009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 33090 | 33090 | 194800 |
09112009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 38090 | 189800 |
09112009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 45000 | 83090 | 144800 |
23042010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 4400 | 87490 | 140400 |
06082010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 10000 | 97490 | 130400 |
06082010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 28200 | 125690 | 102200 |
16072011 | 40168 | 010023048 | 28700 | 154390 | 73500 |
16072011 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 159390 | 68500 |
16072011 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 164390 | 63500 |
06082012 | 40168 | 010014034 | 57000 | 170090 | 57800 |
06082012 | 40168 | 010014034 | 38700 | 208790 | 19100 |
09082012 | 40168 | 010014034 | 5000 | 213790 | 14100 |
CCNo36/2015 | |||||
06102008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 28090 | 28090 | 215000 |
07102008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 10000 | 38090 | 205000 |
11102008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 4483 | 42573 | 200517 |
15102008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 6000 | 48573 | 194517 |
20102008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 60000 | 108573 | 134517 |
08082009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 27000 | 135573 | 107517 |
19092009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 140573 | 102517 |
19092009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 145573 | 97517 |
06082010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 10000 | 155573 | 87517 |
06082010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 28200 | 183773 | 59317 |
16072011 | 40168 | 010023048 | 28700 | 212473 | 30617 |
16072011 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 217473 | 25617 |
16072011 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 222473 | 20617 |
CCNo37/2015 | |||||
14112008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 33090 | 33090 | 181640 |
24112008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 48000 | 81090 | 133640 |
17082009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 34000 | 115090 | 99640 |
29102009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 4400 | 119490 | 95240 |
09082010 | 40168 | 010013693 | 34000 | 153490 | 61240 |
04082011 | 40168 | 010014034 | 38000 | 191490 | 23240 |
CC No38/2015 | |||||
08122008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 57800 | 57800 | 192200 |
11082009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 57000 | 114800 | 135200 |
10092009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 18000 | 132800 | 117200 |
17072010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 57000 | 189800 | 60200 |
03082011 | 40168 | 010014034 | 60200 | 250000 | 000 |
CCNo40/2015 | |||||
31122008 | 40168 | 010023048 | 33090 | 33090 | 196000 |
21042009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 45000 | 78090 | 151000 |
22042009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 4400 | 82490 | 146600 |
03082009 | 40168 | 010023048 | 27000 | 109490 | 119600 |
14112009 | 40168 | 010015362 | 4780 | 114270 | 114820 |
30072010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 27000 | 141270 | 87820 |
07082010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 146270 | 82820 |
09082011 | 40168 | 010014034 | 32582 | 178852 | 50238 |
CC No41/2015 | |||||
20112009 | 40168 | 010015362 | 28090 | 28090 | 199800 |
06012010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 33090 | 194800 |
03032010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 4444 | 37534 | 190356 |
09032010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 45000 | 82534 | 145356 |
30072010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 27000 | 109534 | 118356 |
07082010 | 40168 | 010023048 | 5000 | 114534 | 113356 |
08082011 | 40168 | 010014034 | 32468 | 147002 | 80888 |
10082012 | 40168 | 010028106 | 27500 | 174502 | 53388 |
(s) Therefore the complainant Roshani pertaining to CC No35/2015 and the complainant Mohammed Siddiq Moinuddin Adil pertaining to CC No41/2015 are entitled to subsidy benefits as accorded in both the Central as well as State schemes as noted above
(t) The complainants in CC No36, 37, 38 and 40 of 2015 are entitled to the subsidy benefit as per the scheme of the State Government and with regard to scheme of the Central Government they are entitled to such schemes partially To put the same in more clear terms we are to state that Chandni the complainant in CC No36/2015 shall be entitled to benefit under the Central Scheme with effect from 08082009 and onwards till conclusion of the moratorium period in as much as her loan had commenced with effect from 06102008
(u) Coming to Sneha the complainant in CC No37/2015 the benefit under the Central Government scheme shall commence from 17082009 onwards till conclusion of the moratorium period in as much as the commencing date of the loan was on 14112008
(v) Coming to Nazia Banu the complainant in CC No38/2015 the said central scheme shall apply with effect from 11082009 till conclusion of the moratorium period in as much as payment of loan was commenced from 08122008
(w) Coming to Afshan Jabeen the complainant in CC No40/2015 benefit under the Central scheme shall applicable from 21042009 till conclusion of the moratorium period in as much as from 31122008 she started availing the loan
(x) As such, the OPs again have to work.out the loan liabilities of each of these complainants by providing benefits under both the schemes as noted above, by giving up the subsidies provided as described in memos dated: 19122015
22 All these complainants have completed their educational career, and certainly now they are given the benefit of the said subsidies under the State as well as Central Government schemes These complainants cannot hope of making gain by seeking compensation to the extent of Rs1,00,000/. For, we cannot blame the OPs fully for their inaction The OPs in general and the OP.1 in particular have and has already given the said subsidies which cannot be overlooked though they may not be in continuation and confirmation of the said Central and State schemes
23 Since the OP.1 has already re.credited the said sums as recovered by way of interest to the respective bank accounts of the parents there is no need to consider claim of these complainants for refunding of the same
24 Equally we cannot consider claim of these complainants to get their accounts transferred over to Canara Bank from Op.1 Bank For, there are no pleadings to support this claim nor evidence Even otherwise, this Forum lacks jurisdiction to consider this prayer, in as much as the complainants have entered in to contract for loans and unilaterally cannot opt to come out of this binding contract that too in the continuity of liability to repay the debts
25 Further the claim is made with regard to interest on the part of these complainants except the complainant in CC No41/2015 stating that, they being girl students Vijaya Bank is accorded 050% concessions in the rate of interest We cannot concede to this plea, for, the loan offering schemes would vary from Banks to Banks If Vijaya Bank found it essential to attract the students to raise professional education loans from it, then it was up to the OP.1 bank to follow the similar spirit or even to increase or decrease the rate of concession in interest In other words it would be a policy matter So we cannot impose on OPs to reduce the rate of interest in case of girl students which would mean the complainants in CC Nos 35 to 38 and 40/2015
26 It was urged by the complainants through their representatives before us that the rate of interest claimed in all these cases is not uniform Whereas, it is fluctuating from 1250% per annum to 1325% per annum For this the learned counsel appearing for the OP.1 has befittingly argued that, in CC No36/2015 and 37/2015 loan availed was on 06102008 and then on 14112008 at which point of time the said rate of interest ie, 1250% per annum was prevailing, and in rest of the cases complainants availed the loans quite subsequently, on 08122008, 31122008, 06102009, 20112009 and as such there was increase in the rate of interest ie, 1325% per annum in usual course We must agree for this submission Hence we do not find any deficiency in service in this context
27 Therefore the said are the findings on these points
POINT 3:.
28 We proceed to pass the following:.
ORDER
01 For foregoing reasons these complaints in CC Nos 35, 36, 37, 38, 40 & 41 of 2015 stand allowed with costs of Rs2,500/. each
(a) These Ops stand directed to accord full subsidy benefits to A Roshni the complainant in CC No35/2015, Siddiq Moinuddin Adil the complainant in CC No41/2015 as per the Central Scheme dated: 21042010 vide DO No No11.4/2010.US, and consequently to accord full interest subsidy during the moratorium period commencing from 06102009 and 20112009 respectively
(b) Besides these OPs shall give benefit of rebate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum in the rate of 1325% per annum interest claimed, which liability to commence after the moratorium period
(c) These OPs shall accord the benefit under the said Central scheme to Chandni, the complainant in CC No36/2015 with effect from 08082009 and to Sneha the complainant in CC No37/2015 with effect from 17082009 and to Nazia Banu the complainant in CC No38/2015 with effect from 11082009 and to Afshan Jabeen the complainant in CC No40/2015 with effect from 21042009 till conclusion of the moratorium period
(d) Besides these OPs shall accord the benefit of 6% per annum rebate in the interest claimed at the rate of 125% per annum claimed as against Chandni and Sneha pertaining to CC No36 and 37 of 2015 and at the rate of 1325% per annum claimed as against Nazia Banu and Afshan Jabeen pertaining to CC Nos 38 and 40 of 2015 respectively which benefit to commence after the moratorium period
(e) As such, the OPs shall again have to work.out the loan liabilities of each of these complainants by providing benefits under both the schemes as noted above, by giving up the subsidies provided as described in memos dated: 19122015
(02) It is ordered to keep original of the common order in CC No35/2015, whereas, the copies thereof in the rest of the cases
(03) Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs
(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.