IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
Smt..Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 153/17(Filed on 21/6/17)
Complainant : 1) Joseph K.A
Kunnel house,
Vattakkunnu PO, Pamapdy,
Kottayam.
2) Elizabeth Joseph
D/o Jospeh K.A
-do-
(Adv. Vimal Revi)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) The Manager,
Corporation Bank,
Vellilavumkal Building,
Pampady, Kottayam-686502
2) The Regional Manager
Corporation Bank,
Valalyil Building, Sastri Road,
Baker Hill, Kottayam-686001.
(Adv. M.C. Scariah)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
The crux of the complaint is as follows:
The first complainant is the father of the second complainant. The complainants are residing at ward no. 13 of Pampady grama panchayath. As per the agreement entered between the first opposite party and the other nationalized bank which are working in the grama panchayath the right to sanction education loan for the residents of ward no. 13 is vested in the first opposite party. On 1-7-2016 complainants approached the first opposite party for availing educational loan. As per the direction of the first opposite party the second complainant had opened an account with first opposite party and she took admission for nursing at Tadikela Subbaiah Collage of Nursing , Shivamogga, Karnatak under the belief that the bank will provide educational loan for studies. But in spite of the repeated requests the opposite parties had not taken any steps to sanction the educational loan application of the second complainant. Though the lawyer’s notice was sent by the complainant, it was in vain. The act of the opposite parties amounts to mal administration and deficiency in service.
Receiving the notice from this forum the first opposite party appeared before the forum and filed version. The second opposite party did not care to appear before the forum.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable. There is no post in the corporation bank as stated as second opposite party and the corporation bank is having no regional office at Kottayam. There is no agreement between the opposite party and other nationalized bank for disbursing the education loan. The complainant had submitted an application for educational loan before the first opposite party. The first opposite party had not instructed the second complainant to open an account in the bank agreeing to sanction education loan. The head office of the first opposite party advised the branch offices to be more selective in approving the education loan as the NPA under education loan port folio are on the rise in the bank. As Kerala is already declared as 100% finacailly included state the complainant has recourse to avail the loan from the bank where she or parents are maintaining their accounts. It was also advised to the complainant to approach the bank where they were having account. It was also informed that if the bank having operative accounts reject the application, the complainant can resubmit the application and the same will be reconsidered on merit. Through the circular the Reserve Bank of India informed all the scheduled banks that the service area norms are to be followed only in the case of government sponsored schemes and are not applicable to sanctioning of educational loans. The complainants have already approached the banking ombudsman for the purpose and the said application was dismissed. The applicants are not the consumers under the purview of the consumer protection act. There is no deficiency in service in any manner from the part of the opposite party.
The first complainant is examined as Pw1 and exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. The first opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exhibits B1 to B8 were marked from the side of the opposite party.
On evaluation of the complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii) Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving any deficiency in
service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs and costs.?
Point number 1 to 3
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the points 1 to 3 together.
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant had submitted an application for educational loan before the first opposite party. Pw1 deposed before the forum that as per the direction of the first opposite party he had opened an account with first opposite party and his daughter took admission for nursing at Tadikela Subbaiah Collage of Nursing, Shivamogga, Karnatak under the belief that the bank will provide educational loan for studies. Exhibit A3 is the pass book of account number 302200101001036 in the name of the Pw1 with the first opposite party. Bonafide Certificate issued by the Principal of the Tadikela Subbaiah Collage of Nursing , Shivamogga, Karnatak is produced and marked as Exhibit A4. The recital of Exhibit A4 proves that the daughter of the Pw1 is studying in 1st year B.Sc nursing course, for the academic year 2016-17. Pw1 further pleaded that the opposite party rejected that loan application in contrary to the assurance given by them. On the other hand the opposite party contended that there was no agreement between the opposite party and other nationalized banks disbursing education loan for the residents of ward no. 13 of Pampady gramapanchayath. On perusal of Ext.B2 and B5 we can see that the opposite party has no right to reject an application for education loan pointing out the norms of service area. Exhibit B5 is rejection letter of the loan issued by the opposite party to the first complainant. On perusal of the Exhibit A1 we can see that the first opposite party advised the Pw1 to approach the bank on which Pw1 have the operative account. Dw1 who is the manager of the first opposite party deposed before the forum that the zonal office of the bank has rejected the loan on the ground, that the head office advised the branch offices to be more selective in approving the education loan as the NPA under education loan port folio are on the rise in the bank. The complainant has no case that the opposite party has received any amount from them as consideration for the granting of loan like as application fee, processing fee or advanced EMI. The complainant did not adduce any evidence to show that the opposite party has received any security or surety for sanctioning the loan. Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant has not availed the service of the opposite party for a consideration for the service as described in section 2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act 1986. Moreover in Nisar Ahmed v. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Revision Petition No. 2562/2017, decided on 24.05.2018] the Hon’ble NCDRC was of the view that a mere assurance by the bank manager that a greater sum shall be sanctioned cannot be treated as a binding condition on the actual sanction of the loan. Therefore we are of the opinion that complaint is devoid merits and liable to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2020
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt..Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits Marked on the side of complainant.
A1-Copy of lawyer’s notice dtd.23/1/2017
A2-Copy of reply letter dtd 31/1/2017
A3-Corporation bank pass book
A4-Copy of Bonafide certificate dtd 7/8/2016
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
B1-Copy of letter No.ZO/TVPM/CSD/107/2016 dtd 16/12/2016
B2-Copy of Service Area Approach Education Loan Scheme dtd 9/11/2012
B3-Copy of lawyer’s notice
B4-Reply letter dtd 31/1/2017
B5-Copy of circular No.608/2012 dtd 17/11/2012
B6-Copy of rejection of education loan application of Elizabeth Joseph
B7-Copy of application dtd.30/11/16
B8-Copy of letter No.ZO/TVPM/CSD/107/2016-17 dtd 16/12/2016
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1- KA.Joseph
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1-Middun Sasankan
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
