::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::                                                                                                                                        

  C.C. No.62/2019.

                                                Date of filing: 04.10.2019.

                                                       Date of disposal:  19.11.2020.

P R E S E N Ts:-    

                                    (1) Shri. Rajmohan Srivastava,   

                                                                            B.Sc., M.A.,LL.M.,

                                                                                President.,  

                               (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                     B.A.LL.B. (Spl.)

                                                                                Member.

                               (3) Kum. Kavita,

                                                    M.A.,LL.B.,  

                                                             Member.

       VERSUS

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By  Shri. Rajmohan Srivastava, President.

                    This complaint  filed by the above said complainants   ( U/sec.12 of C.P.Act., 1986 (Old)) U/s. 35  1 &2  of the C.P.Act., 2019,(New)  against the Respondent  alleging  deficiency in service  on the part of Respondent. 

2.       The subject of the case is as under:

 The Complainants narrated in the complaint that the Complainant No.1 obtained Student Education Loan from the Respondent-Bank.  The Complainant No.2 is the father of the complainant No.1 who has given surety to the Complainant No.1 in getting the loan.  Both complainants have completed necessary formalities under RBI prescribed rules to get the loan.  The Respondent-Bank has followed the procedure.  The complainant No.2 mentioned that the loan amount sanctioned Rs.2,00,000/- dated 02.08.2013 and partly repaid.  But, the Respondent Bank issued legal notice on 24.01.2019 and mentioned the balance outstanding  Rs. 2,71,428/- and overdue amount Rs. 34,367.43.  The Respondent-Bank by legal notice made clear that on non re-payment within 15 days that the Respondent Bank initiates legal action against the complainants.  When the complainants approached the Respondent-Bank but the Respondent Bank did not furnish correct particulars.  The Respondent Bank also deprived the opportunity the scheme for capital One Time Settlement (OTS).  The Respondent-Bank has blocked the S.B. Account.  The Complainants have suffered heavy monitory, physical and financial loss.  The complainant No.1 is the only earning member and complainant No.2 is the dependent.  The Complainants prayed compensation cost of Rs. 50,000/- and also  submitted for One Time Settlement.  The Complainants are consumers and the Respondent- Bank is service provider but due to excess amount shown acted with unfair trade practice.  This complaint is filed within the limitation time and this Commission (Forum) has jurisdiction and claimed cost and damages Rs.50,000/- and also to provide One Time Settlement facility and also be granted any other relief in favour of the complainants.    

3.       The Respondent-Bank appeared and filed Written Statement and submitted that the complaint is baseless, misconceived both in law and on facts and it fit to be dismissed by imposing compensatory costs.  The Respondent-Bank submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable in the present Commission (Forum) because the complainants are not the consumers as defined under the act.  There is no any specific negligence or deficiency in service as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act. The repayment already commenced from the complainants but the complainants irregular in repayment. The Complainant  No.1 successfully completed his degree but not repaid the loan amount under the scheme.  The issuance of demand notice to defaulter who secured the employment and sufficient  means to repay the loan amount.  The Respondent-Bank disputed and  denied that the complainant came for One Time Settlement.  The Complainants have not made any such representation.  It is denied that the Respondent-Bank has not followed the correct procedure and the Respondent Bank denied that the S.B. account of the complainant blocked.  The contents of the complaint mentioned in para No. 7 & 8 are also denied.  It is also disputed and denied that the complainant No.1 is the only earning member and complainant is No.2 has no source of income.  The Respondent submitted that the complainant No.1 deliberately avoided to  disclose the name of the company or Firm in which he is working and drawing the salary.  The Respondent-Bank submitted the complainant No.1 owned agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 53/C measuring -05 acres of Kangankot and also availed the agriculture loan.  The complainant No.2 has owned agricultural land and independent source of income.   The Respondent-Bank submitted that it is handling public money and the Bank is bound to recover the dues from the defaulters.  The complainants are defaulters and wrongly approached this Commission /Forum.  The loan  transaction between the borrower and the Bank beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission.  The Complainants have not shown any specific ground relating to deficiency and negligence  or    unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent-Bank.  The issuance of demand notice cannot be a deficiency of service.  The outstanding balance  about the complainants as on 30.09.2018  Rs. 2,38,741/- .  The Respondent-Bank submitted the complaint be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.  The complaint and written statement  are verified by the respective parties.

4.         The complainant to prove their case filed by sworn affidavit and narrated all the grounds  examined as P.W.1 and  filed documents taken as Annexure No. 1 to  5 and closed their side.

5.     The Respondent examined R.W.1  and exhibited documents  as Ex.R.1 to R.3  and closed his side.

6.       Apart from Written Argument  the learned counsels appeared for complainant and Respondents also advanced oral arguments in the light of evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and documents.

7.       We have heard from the both sides and perused the documents filed by the both parties carefu

8.         Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case following points arose for our consideration.

1. Whether  the  complainants No.1 and 2 proved any specific ground of deficiency of service or negligence or else made out unfair trade practice for issuing demand notice by the Respondent-Bank to the complainants  not legal being as consumers?
2.   Whether the Respondent-Bank has proved no negligence or no deficiency of service or no unfair trade practice when the demand notice  legally  issued for recovery of education loan as shown  outstanding Rs.2,38,741/-, dated 30.09.2018 that the Complainants being defaulters but not as consumers?

3. What orders ?

9.       Our answers to the points raised above are as follows:-

1. In the Negative
2. In the Affirmative.
3. As per the final order.

10.        The both points No.1 & 2 in consideration arise  out of the same facts and circumstances and therefore link together and answered accordingly on the findings as therein below.

  11.        The basic question which is involved in regard to point No.1 to determine that quite obviously the relation between the complainant No.1 and 2 and the Bank is debtor and creditor or else in other words the complainant are borrowers and the Respondent is public sector Bank and therefore in the educational scheme policy the loan granted to complainant No.1.   The documents produced by the complainants i.e. legal notice  and Annexure No.2 is clearly the educational loan vide limit sanctioned Rs. 2,00,000/- on 02.08.2013.  Annexure No.3 is Pass book and clearly the account No. shown as 62161207705 to complainant No.1 Vaibhav, s/o Chandrakanro Kulkrni.  Admittedly the loan sanctioned on 02.08.2013 and the pass book produced of the account holder i.e. complainant No.1 as per details from 31.01.2014.  It is Annexure No. 3 is lastly recorded on 30.05.2019 if it is carefully seen the debit balance and credit balance has variations to the loan amount sanctioned.  In the affidavit of Complainant No.1 admitted about the sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.08.2013.  In the entire sworn affidavit of complainant No.1 that it is not clearly shown how much amount repaid to the education loan utilized by the complainant No.1.  The Respondent in the counter affidavit of R.W.1  has clearly shown the debit and credit by having produced and marked Ex.R.1 to R.3.   It is clear that State Bank of Hyderabad merged in State Bank of India and therefore the statement of account No. 62294280818 is the fresh account number of complainant No.1 in regard to educational loan sanctioned to complainant No.1 for completion of engineering  as stated  in the sworn affidavit.  This apart when the complainant No.1 and 2 ascertain that they have paid major loan amount then they ought to have produced sufficient record to show that the Respondent Bank unable to maintain correct sufficient service about the repayment to the Respondent-Bank in regard to educational loan.  The complainants have not furnished any relevant documents as they contended in the complaint.  But, failed to bring on records to prove against the Respondent-Bank .  The Respondent-Bank by the sworn affidavit of the Bank official by name Punit Benjamin K. Branch Manager in the first instant has made that the complaint in the present District Commission (Forum) is not maintainable because the complainants in this case are not consumers.  It is in fact the documents of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank that the complainants are borrowers and defaulters and they have no right to OTS (One Time Settlement)  settlement when there is no sufficient repayment about the educational loan.   On the other hand the R.W.1 Bank official stated the complainant No.1 not only successfully completed his degree but also has secured employment and getting income on regular basis.   In the sworn affidavit of the R.W.1 stated that the complainant No.1 did not make regular repayments in the account and therefore it became overdue amount when the complainants have sufficient income and unable to show any deficiency of service or  any unfair trade practice then in that case the complainants cannot become Consumers.  When going through the records it is mentioned that by 30.09.2018 the outstanding balance is Rs. 2,38,741/-.  But unlike R.W.1 complainant No.1 as P.W.1 failed firstly to show deficiency of service and also unable to show how much  major amount repaid under the educational loan scheme to the Respondent-Bank.

12.     It appears from the documents of the Respondent-Bank the computer generated account statement  marked as Ex.R.1 to R.3 have come with  clean hands by overdue amount increasing towards the loan amount and the complainants have not been able to show that there has been any deficiency of service on  part of the Respondent-Bank.  When the complainants have utilized the educational  loan amount and which is a loan amount ought to repay as per the agreed rate of interest to the Respondent-Bank.  It is Annexure 3 Passbook also does not tally with the date of loan sanctioned and complainants have not come with clean hands to claim the benefits before the Dist. Consumer Commission.

13.         In view of above discussion, in the light of oral and documentary evidence, the Respondent-Bank by evidence shown that the complainants are not consumers in this case but they are borrowers to the educational loan amount and the liability lie against them to make the repayment of  the loan on  the other hand the Respondent-Bank has proved the point  No.2 in consideration the complainants are borrowers and not consumers and cannot derive any benefits in the given facts and circumstances to claim any benefits under the Consumer Act, 2019.  Therefore the complaint of the complainants No.1 and 2 is devoid of truth and therefore required to be dismissed and therefore on failure to prove point No.1, it is answered in the negative.  Whereas the point No.2 for having shown that the complainants are defaulters to the educational loan  hence, answered in the affirmative.   Hence in view of the above discussion,  we proceed to pass the following:

::ORDERS::

The complaint filed by the complainants ( U/s. 12 of C.P.Act,1986 (Old) )  U/s. 35  1 &2  of the C.P.Act., 2019 (New), against Respondent is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Intimate the parties accordingly.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  19^th day of  November- 2020).

Documents produced by the complainant.

1. Annexure No.1- Legal notice addressed to the Manger, SBI Bidar by the counsel of complainant
2. Annexure No.2- Letter addressed to complainant No.1 by the Respondent.
3. Annexure No.3-  Pass Book of Complainant No.1.
4. Annexure No.4-  Xerox copy of Aadhar card of complainant No.1.
5. Annexure No.5  Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of complainant No.2

.Document produced by the Respondents.

1. Ex.R.1- Statement of account of Complainant No.1
2. Ex.R2- Statement of account of Complainant No.1
3. Ex.R.3- Statement of account of Complainant No.1

Witness examined.

Complainant:

1. P.W.1- Vaibhav, S/o Chandrakantrao Kulkarni, (Complainant No.1).

Respondent:

1 R.W.1- Punit Benjamin K., Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bidar.