Kerala

Wayanad

CC/163/2014

Issac C K, S/o C P Kuriyakose, Aged 63 Years, Chakkalakkal House, kottavayal, Puthoorvayal P O - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kottapadi Branch, Meppadi P O - Opp.Party(s)

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/163/2014
 
1. Issac C K, S/o C P Kuriyakose, Aged 63 Years, Chakkalakkal House, kottavayal, Puthoorvayal P O
Meppadi
Wayanad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kottapadi Branch, Meppadi P O
Meppadi
Wayanad
Kerala
2. The District Collector
Civil Station, Kalpetta North P O
Wayanad
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

 

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to give interest subsidy as declared by state government in education loan number KTL 67043628063 and such other reliefs including the cost of the proceedings.

 

2. Complaint in brief:-The complainant availed education loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for the Nursing Study of his daughter from 1st Opposite party. The 2nd Opposite party on 11.07.2014, declared that those who availed Education loan before 31.03.2009 and those who have yearly Family income of Rs.4.5 Lakhs, the government took over such loans up to 31.12.2013 and such loanees are entitled to get interest subsidy and such loanees can apply for interest subsidy. The Complainant so applied for interest subsidy with 1st Opposite Party but 1st Opposite party did not give interest subsidy to the Complainant. The 1st Opposite party gave a reply to the Complainant stating wrong reason on 17.07.2014. The act of 1st Opposite party is nothing but deficiency of service from the part of 1st Opposite party.

 

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1st Opposite Party, the 1st Opposite party admitted that the Complainant availed education loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from 1st Opposite party during the year 2007 – 2008. The State Government had a scheme to educational subsidy, but it was withdrawn by its order dated 27.06.2014 since the central government has formulated interest subsidy for educational loan availed up to 31.03.2009. So this is the only subsidy available now. The main conditions stipulated for becoming eligible for the subsidy are (a) Students where parental income from all services is up to 4.5 lakhs per annum, who availed loan up to 31.03.2009 and whose account is outstanding as on 31.12.2013 are eligible for interest subsidy. (b) Only unserviced interest outstanding as on 31.12.2013 for such account will be subsidized. © No subsidy for principal loan amount and capitalized interest component, (d) Interest liability from 01.01.2014 to be borne by the borrower only . All those borrowers who have availed educational loans up to 31.03.2009 and not availed any subsidy under any other scheme are only eligible. In case of borrowers, who have been sanctioned a loan prior to 31.03.2009 but started availing loan instalments subsequent 31.03.2009 are not eligible as they are being covered under existing scheme. The Complainant has already received the interest subsidy to the time of Rs.41,331/- under the existing scheme. So he is not eligible for subsidy under the new scheme as he had already received to subsidy under one scheme. A borrower who have availed educational loan up to 2009 and not availed any interest subsidy under any other scheme are only eligible. This fact is informed to the Complainant directly and in reply. There is no deficiency service from the part of 1st Opposite party. In the version of 2nd Opposite party, 2nd Opposite party stated that the order of 2nd Opposite party is withdrawn on 03.08.2013 since the central government passed a new subsidy scheme enhancing the limit up to 4.5 lakhs. So 2nd Opposite party issued paper publication and requested the loanees to approach the bank for subsidy. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 2nd Opposite Party.

 

4. On perusal of complaint , version and documents the Forum raised the following points for considerations.

  1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

  2. Relief and costs.

     

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The 1st Opposite party filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 are marked. 2nd Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW2 and documents are marked as Exts.B3 and B4. 1st Opposite party produced a document and is marked as Ext.B5. On going through Ext.B3 document, it is seen that it is an order passed by Government of Kerala dated 03.08.2013 in favour of Education Loanees who availed loan during 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2009 and their income is 3,00,000/- per annum are also entitled for interest subsidy to the education loans. It is seen from Ext.B1 document that the 1st Opposite Party had given some interest subsidy on 28.04.2011, 06.12.2011, 22.11.2012 and 08.05.2013 which will come in total Rs.41,331/-. Ext. B3 order is dated 03.08.2013. The above stated subsidy is given prior to Ext.B3 order. In Ext.B4 document , it is clearly stated that if Government had given any interest subsidy, such loanees are not entitled for central Government subsidy. Here on perusal, the subsidy given by 1st Opposite party are before Ext.B3 order. So it cannot be treated as subsidy given by 1st Opposite party on the basis of Ext.B3 order. It is up to the 1st Opposite Party to prove that which subsidy is given to the Complainant as per which order. No evidence is produced by 1st Opposite party in this regard. So the Complainant did not get subsidy as per Ext.B3 order. Later Ext.B3 order is withdrawn by the state government as per Ext.B4 order. So the Complainant is entitled to get interest subsidy announced by the central government. As per Ext.B4 document, the Complainant is entitled for the interest subsidy only for the instalment amounts received by the Complainant. The Complainant received 1st instalment on 11.11.2008 Rs.90,000/- 2nd instalment on 19.10.2009 Rs.75,000/- and 3rd instalment on 04.08.2011 Rs.85,000/- only. So the Complainant received Rs.2,50,000/- only from 1st Opposite party. The Complainant is entitled to get interest subsidy as per central government scheme up to Rs.2,50,000/-. In the cross examination of 2nd Opposite party, 2nd Opposite party admitted that the Complainant is entitled for interest subsidy as per central government scheme as soon as fund is available, it will be given to the complainant. The Complainant already filed application for interest subsidy as per central government scheme. So by analysing the entire evidence and documents, the Forum is of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled for interest subsidy for the instalments received by him in total Rs.2,50,000/-. The non granting of interest subsidy as per central government scheme by Opposite parties is a deficiency from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

 

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost of the proceedings. Since there is no prayer for compensation, compensation cannot be awarded.

 

In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are directed to give interest subsidy to the complainant in education loan MTL 67043628063 as per Central Government Scheme of subsidy to the instalments received by the complainant during 11.11.2008, 19.10.2009 and 04.08.2011 respectively. The Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite parties shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of August 2015.

 

Date of Filing:02.08.2014.

 

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

 

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witness for the complainant:

 

PW1. Issac. C.K. Complainant.

 

 

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

 

OPW1. Rajesh. Manager, SBT, Kottappadi.

 

OPW2. Sivadas. U.D.Clerk, Collectorate, Wayanad.

 

 

Exhibits for the complainant

 

A1. Copy of Pepper Cutting (Malayala Manorama News Pepper). dt:11.07.2014

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:17.07.2014.

 

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

 

B1. Copy of Statement of Account. dt:09.01.2015.

B2. Copy of Circular No.PSB/21/2014. dt:19.03.2014.

B3. Copy of Government Order. dt:03.08.2013.

B4. Copy of Government Order. dt:27.06.2014.

B5. Copy of Circular No.PSB/37/2010. dt:21.08.2010.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly 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.