ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.      This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service against OPs in not providing him the interest subsidy in respect of the education loan availed by the complainant thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and to direct the OPs to claim the interest subsidy from the concerned and to pay the same to him to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum on the same and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing the delay and causing physical and mental agony and for Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant  borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the OP towards education loan to pursue his higher education in medicine.  He pursued the post-graduation with Ruby Hall Clinic situated at Pune, Maharashtra and thereafter Mazumdarshaw medical center which identify Texila American University to undergo necessary clinical posting enabling to pursue the post-graduation. Even though the Texila American university is a foreign university recognized in India as per IBA model scheme by Medical Counsel of India he pursued the post-graduation in India. He obtained the said loan for the said purpose from OPs after making necessary application and providing documents and the same was sanctioned by OPs, for which himself and his father executed mortgage deed as collateral security by securing the house property of his father by mortgaging the same in favour of the OPs as the loan amount was exceeding Rs.7.5 lakhs.  He did his PG course in Chest Medicine.  The course for a period of three years plus one year moratorium. He availed the said loan during 2014 and repaid the same on 18.09.2020 along with interest and other charges.  The said loan was obtained by him under the central sector interest subsidy scheme 2009 wherein a person whose income below Rs.4.5 lakhs as on the date of loan is entitle for interest subsidy. 

3.      Further himself and his father produced the income certificate issued by the Tahasildar in respect of their family income and also executed agreement with the OP in respect of the claim of the subsidy.  He requested OP to provide the interest subsidy and made several correspondences and requested OP on 04.01.2021 to deposit or credit the interest subsidy on the loan availed by him to his savings account.  On 16.02.2021, OP has replied that he (complainant) is not entitle /eligible for interest subsidy as the loan sanctioned was under  collateral security.  OP refused to process the application and pursue the same with the nodal bank to get the interest subsidy and adjust to the account and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not providing him the interest subsidy on the educational loan availed by him.

4.      The interest subsidy is given to the loan obtained by the students to pursue their studies for which banks are sanctioning loan and the Government of India is providing interest subsidy on the loan availed provided the borrower is having annual income of Rs.4.5 lakhs per annum.  It is only criteria for sanctioning the interest subsidy whereas the loan up to Rs.7.5 lakhs has to be sanctioned without any collateral security, whereas loan above Rs.7.5 lakhs requires collateral security but the said fact is nothing to do with providing interest subsidy and hence prayed the commission to allow the complaint.

5.      Upon the service of notice, OP-1 and 2 appeared before the commission and filed their version.  OP-1 is the bank branch which sanctioned the loan whereas OP-2 is the RACPC of the bank maintaining the loan documents.  In the version filed by OPs, it is contended that,  the complainant borrowed an educational loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for the purpose of pursuing masters in Chest Medicine at Texila American University under SBM Gnanamithra Scheme.  Under the said scheme, master circular dated 01.04.2011 the maximum loan amount that could be disbursed for study in India was Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- for studies at abroad.  The objectives of the scheme has been mentioned in the master circular.  After considering the proposal for the loan, complainant was sanctioned Rs.15,00,000/- for the education loan based on the valuation of the property which is around Rs.94,88,000/-.  In the said proposal under the borrower profile, net means of the father of the complainant has been declared as Rs.70.50 lakhs. After obtaining the loan the complainant and his father offered the property as collateral security and registered the same by depositing the title deeds with the sub-registrar.

6.      The loan was disbursed as per the requirement and demand of the college in US dollars. The Government of India devised interest subsidy scheme on education loan for economically weaker section for students whose annual gross parental /family income was up to Rs.4,50,000/- from the year 2009 and 2010. The said scheme was solely devised for the benefit of economically weaker section of the society.  As per the scheme details, only once either an undergraduate degree or Post graduate degree or diploma course, interest subsidy could be availed. It has admitted the several communications and correspondences between the complainant. Though the complainant demanded for interest subsidy credit to his account, the same was not considered and the same was communicated upon which complainant cleared the loan by paying the principle and interest on 18.09.2020. 

7.      This complainant is not eligible for subsidy under the said scheme as the scheme was restricted to the students enrolled in professional/technical course only from NAAC accredited institution or professional or technical programmed accredited by NBA or institution of National Importance or Central Funded Technical Institution of national importance. However the complainant herein pursued Post graduation course (MD) in Chest Medicine in Texila American University for which they sanctioned loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and the amount was disbursed in US dollars.  The act of OPs in informing the complainant that complainant is not eligible for the interest subsidy cannot at any stretch of imagination be held as dereliction of duty or deficiency in service to knock the door of this commission. Complainant has approached this commission only after clearing the loan amount.  That means, he has capacity to clear the loan and do not belong to economically weaker section of the society and not entitle for the interest subsidy.  The scheme is made available to the pending loans unless and until the scheme itself speaks to the contrary.   In case the request of the complainant is considered, as loan is already closed, the same would open Pandora box and every person who had cleared the loan, would try to seek the refund of the amount paid in the form of interest. The present complaint is  nothing but misunderstanding and wrong reading of the scheme.  Hence the same is liable to be rejected.  Inspite of informing the complainant that he is not eligible for interest subsidy, still with ulterior motive and to make unlawful gain has filed their complaint, which deserves to be dismissed. Hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

8.      In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

9.      Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:      IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2:      PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

                             For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1 & 2:-

10.    On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by both  parties, it becomes clear that, complainant borrowed education loan of Rs.15,00.000/- from OPs and repaid the same as per Ex.P4 which is the letter given by OP stating that the loan has been cleared along with interest and the loan stands closed as on today (18.09.2020).

11.    It is the specific case of the complainant that, he borrowed an educational loan of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for his higher studies by mortgaging the property of his father as collateral security and the registered the same with Sub-registrar and availed  a loan and completed his higher education in medicine. It is the his further case that he belongs to economically weaker section of the society having Rs.95,000/- only as annual income of his father for which he has produced Ex.P3 the income certificate issued by the concerned Tahasildar of Bangalore North Taluk. The said documents was produced to the OP at the time of availing the loan.

12.    Several correspondences have been made by the complainant claiming interest subsidy.  When the central government has provided interest subsidy in respect of the educational loan obtained by the persons belonging to economically weaker section of the society, whose income below Rs.4.5 lakhs per annum, OPs is bound to process the application and send it to the nodal bank for sanction of the interest subsidy and in case the loan is not cleared fully and the interest subsidy has been sanctioned by Government of India, then the same has to be adjusted/ appropriated to the interest or principal payable by the borrower. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the borrower has paid the full amount including the interest portion. Whereas, his application has not at all been processed by the OPs on the ground that as contended in the version he is not eligible for the interest subsidy as his property is valued at Rs.94,88,000/-.

13.    The whole approach of the OPs are not sustainable and is wrong. As per the scheme of granting educational loan submitted by OPs themselves the condition of obtaining collateral security was for the loan amount above 7.5 lakhs and up to Rs.20 lakhs. Loan up to Rs.7.5 lakhs has to be sanction without any collateral security.  Collateral security is for only obtaining the loan from Rs.7.5 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs and it is not for availing interest subsidy. 

14.    Interest subsidy is to be given irrespective of the amount of education loan given to the students provided, the students belongs to economically weaker section of the society, having income below Rs.4.5 lakhs per year and subject the other conditions of the education of the student. Further the annual income of parents has been raised to Rs.8,00,000/- per annum in respect of economically weaker section of the society.  In view of this, the contention of the OP that the complainant is affluent, having property worth  Rs.94,88,000/-and that he has repaid their loan along with interest and hence not eligible for interest subsidy cannot be accepted.  It has to process the application of the complainant for interest subsidy and send it to the concerned authority i.e nodal bank or agency/ ministry of education/ ministry of finance and pursue the same and get the interest subsidy amount from the Government of India and credit the same to the account of the complainant. 

15.    In view of this, there is long delay by OPs in not sending the papers to the subsidy portal and denying the benefits granted by the Govt. of India to the complainant by OPs  clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  The act of OPs put the complainant to suffer mentally, financially and hence he is to be compensated reasonably and hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT No.2:

16.    Further OPs are to be directed to process the application for subsidy and send it for the nodal agency/Government of India claiming the interest subsidy and pursue the same and adjust the said amount to the account of the complainant, since the entire loan amount has been cleared by the complainant including the principle and the interest, OPs are also to be directed to pay interest on the said amount @6% per annum due to their lapse in not processing the same at the earliest from 18.09.2020 and also to be directed to pay a sum for Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigations expenses. OPs are to be directed to pursue the matter with the nodal bank/Government of India and see that the amount is remitted to the complainant account at the outer limit of six months and also to be directed to file the action taken report as well as the progress achieved in this context once in every two months.  Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and  pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part with cost.
2. OPs are directed to claim interest on Rs.15,00,000/- the loan sanctioned to the complainant to the nodal agency/Government of India and pay the same to the account of the complainant as soon as it receives the same from the nodal agency/Government of India.
3. OPs are directed to pay the above interest subsidy amount along with interest @6% per annum from 18.09.2020 the day on which complainant cleared the education loan along with interest.
4. OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigations expenses.
5.  OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order and submit the progress report to this Commission once in 2 months.
6.  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 17^th day of May 2022)

MEMBER           MEMBER          PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Loan clearance certificate.

Ex P2: Copy of the letter dt:04.11.2021

Ex. P3: Copy of the Income certificate of complainant’s family.

Ex P4: Copy of the certificate given by the bank.

Ex P5: Copy of loan agreement.

Ex P6: Copy of Memorandum relating to deposit of title deeds.

Ex P7: Copy of the letter written by Bank.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Akhilesh Kumar, Manager of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the personal banking educational loan.

Ex R2 & R3: Copy of the e-circular pertaining to personal banking advances.

Ex R4: Copy of the proposal for sanction dt:23.12.2013.

Ex R5: Copy of the valuation certificate.

Ex R6: Copy of the certificate issued Texila America University

Ex R7: Copy of the receipts

EX R8: Copy of the TT dt:22.04.2015.

Ex R9: Copy of the requisition by complainant.

Ex R10: Copy of the Statement of account of the complainant.

Ex R11: Copy of the list of educational loan accounts.

Ex R12: Copy of the reply issued by OP dt:16.02.2021.

MEMBER           MEMBER          PRESIDENT

RAK*