KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.71/2024

ORDER DATED: 13.12.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.156/2024 in C.C.No.155/2020 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. P. Balakrishnan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

(by Party in person)

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioner is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.155/2020 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the ‘District Commission’).

2.       The complainant availed an education loan in connection with the education of his son for the MBBS course.  The loan was sanctioned on 29.09.2018 and the loan amount was Rs.19,94,000/-(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand only).  As per the terms of the education loan, the amount had to be repaid within one year after the completion of the course or six months after getting the job, whichever is earlier.  It is contended by the complainant that the complainant was made to believe by the Manager of the opposite party that there would be subsidy by way of deduction in interest accrued on the principal amount as sanctioned by the Central Government.  Accordingly, the complainant availed an amount of Rs.4,98,500/-(Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) as the first instalment.  Thereafter, the complainant noticed that the interest accrued in every six months was not given as subsidy as had been informed to the complainant by the Manager of the opposite party bank.

3.       When the complainant approached the Manager of the bank, the complainant was informed that there was a mistake on the side of the Manager in giving advice to the complainant that there was subsidy for the education loan.  The complainant has submitted that he has been now made to understand that the Central Government had reduced the upper ceiling limit, for granting subsidy to the education loan, to Rs.7.5 lakh from the earlier existing ceiling limit of Rs.10 lakh.  In view of the above, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4.       While the complaint was pending before the District Commission, the complainant filed I.A.No.156/2024 inter alia praying for granting an order to prevent the opposite party from effecting recovery from the complainant till the final disposal of the case.  The District Commission as per order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.156/2024 directed the complainant to deposit Rs.4,98,500/-(Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred only), which was the loan amount availed by the complainant, before the bank. It was further directed by the District Commission that in the event of depositing the amount, the said amount shall be treated as principal amount till the disposal of the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved by the above order, the opposite party has filed this revision petition.

6.       Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.  We have also heard the respondent, Sri. Prem Kumar, who has appeared in person.  Perused the records.

7.       The complainant has submitted that the opposite party had proceeded against the complainant to recover the amount at the time when the opposite party was not entitled to take coercive measures against the complainant as per the terms of disbursement of the loan availed by the complainant on 29.09.2018 and in the said circumstances, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

8.  It appears from the order impugned that the District Commission had prima facie found that the complainant was a defaulter.  It further appears that the District Commission did not incline to decide prima facie as to whether there was any element indicating deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party before passing the order impugned.  It was incumbent upon the District Commission to enter into a finding as to whether there was any element to indicate prima facie deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, before passing the order impugned.  It is also not discernible as to how the District Commission would issue a direction to the opposite party even after finding that the complainant was a defaulter.  It is true that if the opposite party had proceeded against the complainant to recover the amount before the period stipulated in the agreement, there can be deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  However, that is a matter to be decided only after adducing evidence.  

9.       Having gone through the order passed by the District Commission, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the District Commission is not legal, proper and correct and hence the same cannot be sustained.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, the order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.156/2024 in C.C.No.155/2020 stands set aside and the I.A.No.156/2024 stands dismissed.  The District Commission is directed to dispose of C.C.No.155/2020 in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, untrammelled by any of the observations in the order impugned.

The complainant had already deposited the amount as per the direction of the District Commission.   Therefore, the said amount will be credited to the loan account subject to the final decision to be taken by the District Commission in the matter.

Needless to state that the above amount shall carry interest from the date of deposit.  The District Commission shall consider all the contentions of the complainant and the opposite party in respect of the amount directed to be deposited by the complainant as per the order impugned at the time of final disposal of the complaint.

SL