IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/94/2017.
Date of Filing Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
19.06.17 29.06.17 11.02.2020
Complainant:Kundan Chakraborty
S/o Debabrata Chakraborty
Vill- Nabapally Karbala Road
PO-Cossimbazar, PS-Berhampore
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742102
-Vs-
Opposite Party:Umakanta Jha
Branch Manager of Bank of India
14, Bimal Sing Sarani,
1StLaldighi, PO&PS-Berhampore
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Santosh Kr. Sutradhar.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Jayanta Bagchi.
Present: Sri AsishKumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay ……………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
OneKundan Chakraborty (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Umakanta Jha, Branch Manager of Bank of India (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant approached the OP for an educational loan and the OP No.1 granted the loan in 2012 on certain terms and conditions. At the time of disbursement of the loan amount, the Complainant was a student of Meghnad Saha Institute of Technology, Kolkata. As per rule, a student is entitled to get interest subsidy provided his or her parental income is up to 4.5 lacs per annum and in such case, the loanee is eligible for 100% loan subsidy if the loan is disbursed on or after 01.04.2009. The parental income of the Complainant was less that 4.5 lacs per annum in 2012 onwards. In spite of submitting application and documents, the OP did not adjust the subsidy amount till 31.05.17. The Complainant paid Rs.79,512.57/- against the loan amount and that amount should be adjusted with the loan amount of Rs.3,30,423/- on 01.11.12. The Complainant by several letters requested the OP to adjust the subsidy amount from the accrued interest but the OP did not pay any heed to it. The OP had already got a sum of Rs.20,666/- as subsidy till 05.06.17. The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP not to claim any interest upon the loan amount from the Complainant since the disbursement of the loan amount till expiry of the moratorium period.
The OP contested the case by filing written version on 18.09.17, contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the case of the OP that the Complainant applied for Star Educational Loan of Rs.3,30,423/- including credit assured premium before the OP, Bank and the OP sanctioned the said amount on 01.11.12 as per terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the sanctioned letter dated 01.12.12 duly accepted and signed by the Complainant and his father Debabrata Chakraborty. Loan amount was disbursed, and the rate of interest was fixed @ 3% above base rate presently 12.50% (floating) or such other rate or rates stipulated by the Bank from time to time. Above concession in ROI @ 1% will be provided for the study of the moratorium period if the interest is received regularly. The OP Bank on the basis of terms and conditions charged interest in the account of educational loan. It is not a fact that the loanee is eligible for 100% interest exemption on educational loan availed from the schedule Bank if the loan should be disbursed on or after 01.04.09. It is not a fact that the parental family income of the Complainant is less than 4.5 lacs. The OP also denied non-adjustment of subsidy amount from the accrued interest till 31.05.17. It is not a fact that the Bank already received a sum of Rs.20,666/- as subsidy till 06.05.17 and the Complainant is entitled to exempted to pay interest upon the loan amount till moratorium period. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The interest subsidy which was received by the Bank duly credited to the loan account of the Complainant. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1.Is the Complainanta consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OP for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action of this case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint..
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP ultimately credited the subsidy amount to the loan account of the Complainant during pendency of this case. It is argued that the OP has deficiency in service as the OP did not respond to several requests of the Complainant. He submits that the OP has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OP.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the OP never withheld any amount received from the Government through the Nodal Bank as interest subsidy in respect of loan of the Complainant. It is argued that the OP credited the amount on subsidy in the account of the Complainant on receipt of the same. He contends that the OP has not deficiency in service.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant documents filed by both sides. On a careful consideration, we find that the OP has credited the subsidy amount received from the Government to the loan account of the Complainant.
We find that the OP did not respond to the letters but credited the subsidy from time to time to the loan account of the Complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the Complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In our considered opinion, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case against the OP.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 19.06.17 and admitted on 29.06.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/94/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand/by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website :
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
