R.K. AGRAWAL, J. PRESIDENT

1.       Delay condoned.

2.       By these Revision Petitions, preferred under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a Branch and the Regional Office as well as the Head Office of the Bank of Baroda, arrayed as Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the Complaints under the Act, call in question the correctness and legality of a common Order dated 20.02.2018, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeals No.670/2017 and 671/2017.  By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed both the Appeals, which had been preferred by the Petitioners herein against two Orders, both dated 15.05.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tonk, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Cases No. 304/2015 and 305/2015.  By the said Orders, while allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents herein, the District Commission had directed the Petitioners to pay to: (i) the Respondent in the first case sums of Rs.5,279/- and Rs.9,779.89 towards monetary loss and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony; and (ii) the Respondent in the second case sums of Rs.52,901/- and Rs.17,908.75 towards monetary loss and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony.  These amounts were directed to be credited in the loan accounts of the respective Respondent herein along with 9% simple interest from the date of filing of the Complaints.  By way of default clause, it was directed by the District Commission that if the aforesaid amounts were not paid within one month, then the same would be paid along with 12% simple interest.  Further, the Petitioners were directed to deposit the amount of interest subsidy to be accrued in future on the loan account of the respective Respondent, and pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- in each of the two cases.  The District Commission had also given liberty to the Petitioners to proceed with the Departmental Enquiry against the delinquent Officers and to recover the awarded amounts from them if they are found guilty in the said enquiry.   

3.       The facts in both the Cases vis-à-vis the cause of action, reliefs prayed for in the Complaints and granted by the District Commission and upheld by the State Commission are similar.  Briefly stated, the facts in the Cases are that both the Respondents, who were brothers, had taken educational loan from the Petitioner Bank in the year 2010, where-after they had taken admission in the four year B. Tech Course.  Every year they were required to deposit the interest charged on the principal amount and the installments of the principal amount were to be paid after one year of completing the said Course or after six months of getting the job, whichever was earlier.  After some time, the Central Government had passed a Scheme, under which the interest charged for a period of five years was to be given to the Respondents as subsidy, as, according to them, they were eligible for the same and had also submitted relevant documents with the Petitioner Bank in this behalf.  However, full subsidy under the said Scheme was not provided to them.  According to the Respondents, in response to their query under Right to Information Act, 2005, the Petitioner Bank had admitted that for that lapse the Bank Officers were responsible.  Even thereafter, the subsidy was not provided to the Respondents, which amounted to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Bank as also monetary loss and physical/mental agony to the Respondents.  Accordingly, both the Respondents filed their respective Complaint before the District Commission, praying for the reliefs, enumerated therein.

4.       Upon notice, the Petitioner Bank stated that the Respondents had taken educational loan, wherein as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government: interest is received; conditions of higher education are fixed; and subsidy is fixed.  It was also stated that under the aforesaid Scheme, the Respondents were eligible.  More than one year had lapsed after the Respondents had got the job and the installments of the loan accounts were to be deposited from the year 2015 but not a single installment had been deposited by them and accordingly they were defaulter and had filed the false cases.   Neither there was any deficiency on their part nor had they received any subsidy for the Respondents. Whatever amount had been deposited by the Respondents, the same had been adjusted in their loan accounts.      

5.       On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Parties and material available on record, the District Commission came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Bank in not claiming the interest subsidy at the appropriate time and not depositing the same in the loan accounts of the Respondents.  Accordingly, while allowing the Complaints, the District Commission issued the afore-noted directions to the Petitioner Bank.

6.       Feeling aggrieved with the Orders passed by the District Commission, the Petitioner Bank preferred the afore-noted two Appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission too found force in the case of the Respondents and for the reasons given in the common Impugned Order dismissed both the Appeals, holding that there was no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Orders passed by the District Commission.  

7.       Still not satisfied with the concurrent Orders passed by the Fora below and aggrieved with the direction to pay to the respective Respondent in both the Cases a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, the Petitioners are before us in the present Revision Petitions.

8.       Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the material on record, including the Orders passed by the Fora below.  

9.       The question, which falls for our consideration, is as to whether the Petitioners were justified in not claiming the interest subsidy at the appropriate time and not depositing the same in the loan account of the Respondents.  It is not in dispute that in order to pursue B. Tech Course the Respondents had taken educational loan from the Petitioner Bank in the year 2010 and it was to be repaid after one year of completion of the said Course or after six months of getting the job, whichever was earlier.  For reasons best known to the Petitioners, they did not claim the interest subsidy in the case of the Respondents.  There was also no denial on the part of the Petitioner Bank that the Respondents were not eligible for receiving the interest subsidy under the relevant Scheme notified by the Central Government.  However, in the Reply filed before the District Commission they had taken a plea that the Respondents had not filed any application in this behalf to the Bank.  Being one of the eminent and leading Banks of the country, the Petitioner Bank was not expected to state so.  The mere fact that the Respondents had taken the educational loan from it and were admittedly eligible to receive the interest subsidy as per the relevant provisions of the Scheme notified by the Central Government was sufficient for the Bank to take appropriate steps in the matter.  The Respondents were not required to request the Bank to release the interest subsidy to them as per the said Scheme. The District Commission on appreciation of the evidence adduced and the documents filed by both the Parties, including the reply sent by the Petitioner Bank to the query made by the Respondents under Right to Information Act 2005 in the matter, has rightly recorded a finding of fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Bank in not claiming the interest subsidy at the appropriate time in the case of the Respondents and not depositing the same in their loan accounts.  The State Commission for the reasons recorded in the Impugned Order has also agreed with the view taken by the District Commission.  Still, the Petitioners are aggrieved with a direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony suffered by the Respondents and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses in both the cases.  As far as the merits of the matter are concerned, we find that the Petitioners have nothing to say and have also partly accepted the Orders passed by the Fora below by indemnifying the monetary loss suffered by the Respondents.  The plight of the Respondents, who were students and had taken educational loan to pursue further studies and though they were eligible to receive the interest subsidy as per the Scheme notified by the Central Government but were being denied the same, as well as the resultant mental and physical agony suffered by them cannot be imagined and, therefore, the District Commission has rightly issued the said direction, which has been affirmed by the State Commission.  In our considered view, while this clearly shows that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Bank in not claiming and depositing the interest subsidy in the loan accounts of the Respondents, the direction to pay any interest on the amount of compensation was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.  It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that compensation cannot be awarded under multiple heads.  Accordingly, it is directed that no interest shall be payable on the amount of compensation awarded by the Fora below.  As far as the direction to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses in both the cases is concerned, the same needs no interference and is hereby maintained.

10.     Both the Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.  There shall be no Order as to costs.