Date of filing – 13.08.2013
Date of final hearing – 21.09.2016
PER HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the instance of a son and his father jointly against the officials of Canara Bank for deficiency in services on the part of them in providing loan in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
In a nutshell, complainants’ case is that in order to give better education in respect of Aviation Pilot Course of Complainant no.1 with Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. at Gujarat through NUJUM Aviation Pvt. Ltd. at Bangalore, the Complainants approached the Oppostite Party no.1 i.e. Canara Bank of Princep Street Branch and made a proposal for obtaining an education loan of Rs.12,00,000/- in October, 2010. On 01.11.2011 the OPs accord sanction of the said amount. After getting sanction, Complainant no.1 was admitted to Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. at Gujarat for 200 hours of Commercial Pilot Licence Course by paying an advance of Rs.3,00,000/- from his personal savings as initial course fee. On 07.01.2011 the OP no.1 with his own hand writing permitted through pledge LIC policy only instead of deficit FDR/KDR and the Complainants fulfilled such consideration and got those LICs under lien to OP no.1 as prime security. The Complainants allege that the OPs and their staff intentionally delaying the matter from the very beginning and due to non-disbursement of education loan by the OP no.1, the Complainants failed to pay the further course fee to the institution resulting the Complainant no.1 was unable to induct further training by the franchise of the said institution namely Academy of Carver Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, Complainant no.1 was delayed to complete the specified course due to non-remittance of further course fee by the Bank in connection with the said education loan. The Complainants had made several attempts over telephone and also personally visited to the addresses of the OPs but the OPs did not give any proper reply about the disbursement of education loan. The Complainants also alleged that due to non-disbursement of the education loan amount, they have suffered huge loss and mental agony and Complainant no.1 could not pass out from the institution due to non-payment of prescribed fees within the stipulated period. Hence, the complaint with prayer for certain reliefs, viz – (a) to direct the OPs to return the deposited amount of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest thereon; (b) compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony; (c) litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- etc.
The Opposite Parties by filing a joint written version disputed and denied all the material allegations contending inter alia that as per sanctioned memorandum dated 01.01.2011, the sanctioned amount was Rs.12,00,000/- and margin money that was to be paid by the Complainants was Rs.15,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, Complainants has paid rs.3,00,000/- till date but while receiving the sanctioned claimed that he paid Rs.5,00,000/- only but failed to show any document showing the payment of rest amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The OPs submit that since the required document could not be produced by the Complainants, the amount of loan could not be disbursed. Moreover, suddenly at the end of December, 2012 the OP no.1 was intimated about a letter dated 15.12.2011 sent to the Complainant no.2 by Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. at Gujarat that the course of the Complainant no.1 would be completed in the month of July, 2012 due to adverse weather and technical reason and nowhere in the said letter, it is mentioned about payment delay or any related matter. The OPs further submit that by a letter dated 11.12.2012 the genuiness of the institute was put to a serious question when OP no.1 received a letter from NUJUM Aviation Pvt. Ltd. stating inter alia that the Complainant who was admitted in Surat with Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. should not complete his training due to several reasons and none of the said several reasons indicate about non-disbursement of loan. According to OPs the instant complaint being meritless one should be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the contention of the parties, the following points are framed for adjudication:-
- Is the case maintainable in its present form?
- Is there any deficiency in services on the part of the Ops?
- Are the complainants entitled to get the relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
During hearing of the case, both the Complainants have filed evidence on affidavit, precisely, the Complainant no.1 has adopted the statement of Complainant no.2 against which questionnaire has been filed by the OPs to which reply was given by the Complainant.
On behalf of OPs, Sri Pradip Kumar Bag, Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Princep Street Branch has tendered evidence on affidavit against which questionnaire has been filed by the Complainants to which reply was given by the OPs.
Besides oral evidence, both the parties have relied upon some documentary evidence also. The Complainants have filed a Brief Notes of Argument in support of their case.
On the basis of the material available on the record, we shall proceed to discuss how far the Complainants have been able to substantiate their case.
DECISION
Point Nos.1 to 3: All the three points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and for brevity of discussion.
Admittedly, Complainant no.1 was a young man of 20 years old and Complainant no.2 is the father of Complainant no.1 and Complainant no.1 was desarious to pursue a course with Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. at Gujarat through NUJUM Aviation Pvt. Ltd. at Bangalore for which a huge amount of fees of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rs.25,00,000/- as cost of course fee and Rs.2,00,000/- for accommodation) was required. Accordingly, Complainant nos. 1 & 2 approached the OP no.1 for sanctioning of loan and produced one letter dated 24.08.2010 given by NUJUM Aviation Pvt. Ltd. addressed to the Complainant no.1 stating that his admission to Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. at Gujarat and also informing him the date of commencement of the course from 10.08.2010 and the total duration of the course to be 200 hours of flying. Out of the said course fee of Rs.27,00,000/-, Complainants were supposed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- at the time of admission i.e. by 10.08.2010.
Be that as it may, on the basis of prayer of the Complainants, the OPs/Bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- as loan and the balance amount i.e. the margin money amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid by the Complainants. It is contended on behalf of the Complainants that while receiving the sanctioned memorandum, they paid Rs.5,00,000/-. On the contrary, it is alleged by the OPs/Bank that only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by the Complainants. At the time of hearing the argument, Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainants has drawn our attention to a chit of paper and contended that the Bank itself admitted that they have paid Rs.5,00,000/-. However, the Complainants have failed to produce any money receipt as to showing payment of balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. In evidence on affidavit on behalf of the OPs, it has been categorically mentioned that while receiving the sanctioned memorandum, the Complainants had claimed that they paid Rs.5,00,000/- but when the OPs had asked for the document showing the payment of rest of the Rs.2,00,000/-, the Complainants have failed to produce any document to that effect.
The Complainants main allegation is that due to non-disbursement of loan by the OP/Bank, Complainant no.1 could not pursue his studies in Aviation Course. In this regard, the letter dated 15.12.2011 (R-I) given by Director, Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. addressed to Complainant no.1 clearly shows that due to adverse weather and technical reasons, the course will be passing out in July, 2012. The letter given by the said Director dated 05.03.2012 (R-II) addressed to the Manager, Canara Bank clearly indicates that the course could not be completed as per schedule due to fuel shortage in India etc. and during communication of that letter, Complainant no.1 submitted 29 hours 20 minutes of flying and cleared three papers except two. The letter given by the institute where the Complainant no.1 was pursuing his studies did not inform the bank that shortage of money has become stumbling block on the part of the Complainant no.1 to undergo the course. Another letter dated 23.11.2012 written by the CEO, Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. (R-III) addressed to the Branch Manager of Canara Bank goes to show that the Complainant no.1 along with other pilot trainees had been shifted to Carver Aviation Pvt. Ltd. We are surprised to record that the Complainant no.1 was admitted at Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. at Gujarat for which the Bank agreed to sanction loan but subsequently when the Complainant no.1 with other trainees shifted from that Academy to some other academy, certainly the Bank will be in a fixed to understand the actual situation. In this regard, the admission letter dated 06.06.2012 issued by Carvar Aviation to the Complainant no.1 is noteworthy. By the said letter, the course fee has been enhanced from Rs.27,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- and additional Rs.1,00,000/- will be charged for placement training and related miscellaneous expenditure.
Another letter given by NUJUM Aviation dated 11.12.2012 given to the Bank Manager (R-V) appears to be more significant wherefrom the reasons for non-completion of the course of the Complainant would be apparent which are – (a) Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. had to be shut for more than eight months due to an audit observation from Air Port Authority of India; (b) inclement weather; (c) nonavailability of Chief Flying instructor and (d) incompetent management of Rainbow Flying Academy Pvt. Ltd. by the promoters and managers. None of the above reasons show any indictment that due to non-payment of loan by the Bank, the Complainant no.1 could not continue with his studies.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainants has taken up a technical point that one Sri Surendranath Sahoo who was the then Assistant General Manager filed written version on behalf of the OPs but the evidence in chief on behalf of the OPs was adduced by another person named Sri Pradip Kumar Bag, Senior Manager, Canara Bank without any application for substitution or by production of any resolution of the Bank. This submission appears to be fragile because the Complainants have lodged this complaint against the OPs Bank in official capacity and from the contents of the Complainants’ itself, it transpires that both Sri Sahoo and Sri Bag were responsible officers of the bank and as such the capacity of them to file W/V or evidence cannot be doubted.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainants has also submitted that they have taken several valuable documents like LIC’s policies etc. with the Canara Bank as assigned for which they have filed an application being MA/598/2016 which will be disposed of with this case. In this regard, it would be pertinent to examine the statement of witnesses. On behalf of Complainants, a question was put being Question no.7 regarding the statement of the OPs that “there is no security in the form of KVPs (LICs Certificate etc.) that has been submitted with the OP/Bank” to which reply has been given that it is a baseless allegation. The Complainants have failed to show any acknowledgement receipt to show that they have ever kept those valuable documents with the OP/Bank.
Ld. Advocate for the OP/Bank has submitted that where the borrower has no genuine intention to repay and adopts pretexts and ploys to avoid payment, the Bank being a public institution has every right to withdraw itself from payment of loan. To fortify his submission, he has placed reliance to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 09.07.2010 in Civil Appeal no.7189/2002 (Managing Director, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation & Ors. – Vs. – Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarde). In the said case, for the purpose of hotel project, a term loan of Rs.30,00,000/- was sanctioned to the Complainant. The Complainant issued a cheque of Rs.30,000/- towards up front fees to the Corporation but the said cheque was dishonoured. In that back drop, the Corporation declined to give any further loan. The acts and conducts of the Complainants and the letters of correspondences by and between the institute and the Complainant no.1 and the OP/Bank clearly postulates that no liability can be attributed upon the OP/Bank.
On evaluation of materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocates for the respective parties, we are of the view that though the Complainants are ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act yet as we do not find any deficiency on the part of the OPs/Bank in accordance with Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the Complainants are not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we do not like to make any order as to costs.
All the points are, therefore, decided and disposed of accordingly.
In view of the above, the instant consumer complaint is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
Consequently, MA/598/2016 also stands dismissed.
