Haryana

StateCommission

A/1298/2017

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIVEK GAUR - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD VERMA

14 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.1298   of 2017

 Date of Institution:30.10.2017

  Date  of  Decision:14.01.2019

 

Oriental Bank of Commerce Branch Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur, Distt.Sonpeat through its Branch Manager & others.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Vivek Gaur s/o Sh. Sat Narain R/o H.No.34 R, Ward No.8, Basant Vihar, Ganaur, Distt.Sonepat.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                    Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Vinod Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Vivek Gaur, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

 

          Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      The facts material to the case are that complainant obtained education loan from the opposite party No.1-appellant of Rs.77140/- for the period 30.08.2007 to 02.02.2011. The loan was to be repaid in 84 installments i.e. Rs.1500/- per month.  The O.P.No.1 wrongly fixed installment of Rs.2308/-.   On 08.10.2011, he requested the OP No.1 to give benefit against the loan interest as per the Govt. notification.  As per notification,  the person whose loan was sanctioned before 31.03.2009,  the govt. would bear the interest of the said person up to 31.12.2013.   The Government of India also announced subsidy to be given after 01.04.2009.  The appellant-bank has not given subsidy on the loan interest of the complainant. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      In reply, the opposite parties filed joint written statement and alleged that  as per loan agreement dated 30.08.2007, simple interest was calculated on the loan amount.  There was no provision  by Central Govt. or the bank to  waiver of interest on education loan.  There was a provision of subsidy on the interest on the loan amount for the period of moratorium i.e. course period plus 1 year or 6 months after getting job, whichever is earlier, under education loan-central Govt. interest subsidy scheme for economically weaker sections. The scheme was applicable  only in respect of the disbursement made by the bank on or after 01.04.2009 from the academic year 2009-10.  The complainant availed loan prior to 01.04.2009. The amount of subsidy granted by the Govt. was transferred in the loan amount of the complainant.  No excess amount has been charged by the bank from the complainant.  No dues certificate  was issued to the complainant on 06.12.2016.  The complainant cannot claim benefit of subsidy for the period prior to 01.04.2009 and after 08.10.2011.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) partly allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 18.09.2017  and directed as under:-

“Thus, we hereby direct the respondent No.1 to approach Central Govt. or Nodal officer who will issue the subsidy to the complainant.  Accordingly, we further direct the respondent No.1 is directed to make the payment of interest of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty thousand) lumpsum of the complainant under the head of wrong charging of interest as the loan case of the complainant falls under the guidelines for all education loans sanctioned/availed upto 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013.  Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The respondent No.1 is also directed to make the compliance of this order within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.12480/- shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      The argument have been advanced by Sh.Vinod Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Vivek Gaur, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      The basic and foremost question which arises for adjudication before this commission is as to whether the complainant is liable to pay interest on the loan amount?

8.      It is not disputed that the complainant had obtained education loan from the opposite party No.1 in the year 2007.  It is also not disputed that the loan was to be repaid in 84 installments.  As per Annexure C-7, in the interim budget 2014, the Govt. will bear the interest outstanding as on 31.12.2013 for all education loan taken prior to 01.04.2009 by students belonging to EWS from Scheduled banks/ RRBs for pursuing any of the approved courses of studies in technical and professional streams from recognized institutions in India.    Under this scheme one time credit equivalent to interest outstanding as on 31.12.2013 was paid by Government.  In reply, the O.P.No.1 has transferred some amount as subsidy to the complainant.  Since, the complainant had received subsidy amount from the bank, so he is not entitled for another concession. The complainant is liable to pay the interest on education loan amount as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  We, therefore, agree with the contention raised by the appellant that the orders passed by the Fora below are perverse in the eyes of law and suffer from a patent legal error.  The appeal is, therefore, allowed; the orders passed by the District Forum is set aside and the consumer complaint in question is ordered to be dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.17,500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

January 14th, 2019     Mrs.Manjula        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addl.Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.