IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 22/2019 (filed on 07/02/2019)
Petitioner : R.K. Kabeer,
S/o. Khankutti,
Ramanattu Purayidathil,
Ponakumma P.O.
Chirakkadav village,
Kanjirappalli Taluk,
Pin – 686506.
(Adv. K.S. Asif)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Union Bank of India,
Ponkunnam Branch,
2) Union Bank of India,
Ponkunnam Branch,
Rep. by Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Ponkunnam P.O. – 686506.
(Adv. Anish Ramakrishnan)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complainant had availed an educational loan from the 2nd opposite party for the higher studies of his daughter Fathima Kabeer at School of Medical Education, Kottayam. The loan amount was Rs.1,47,000/- and it was availed on 11/08/2011 by the complainant. The said Fathima Kabeer completed her course during July 2014. It is submitted in the complaint that though the daughter of the complainant got married, she had not received any job. As per the terms of loan, the repayment would have to be started within one year after the completion of course. But she was not able to repay his loan amount as per condition due to non getting of job. Then the 1st opposite party initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant. However as per the agreement agreed between the complainant and 1st opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- towards the loan amount after deducting the subsidy amount which would be given by the central and state governments. The complainant paid Rs.60,000/- on 02/08/2017 as directed by the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter to quite dismay of the complainant on 15/10/2018 the opposite party withdrew Rs.2,000/- and on 31/10/2018 withdrew Rs.2,400/- from the joint account of the complainant and his daughter Fathima Kabeer. Further on 31/10/2018, the account No. bearing 622102010002442 which is maintained by the complainant and his daughter declared as NPA. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant had paid Rs.60,000/- towards the loan amount. By believing the words of the opposite parties that they would close the loan account and release all the liabilities of the complainant and his daughter towards the said loan account. According to the complainant, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by without performing their assurance and including the name of the complainant in CIBIL by declaring account No.622102010002442 as an NPA. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an Order for directing the opposite parties to remove the account No.622102010002442 from the category of CIIBIL and for compensation.
Upon notices, opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version contenting as follows.
It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant had availed an educational loan for a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- on 11/08/2011. The daughter of the complainant completed her course and he defaulted the payment of loan amount, it is also admitted by the opposite parties that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the complainant. There is no mutual agreement between the complainant and 2nd opposite party to fix the liability as Rs.60,000/- and directed to pay the same. The complainant paid voluntarily Rs.60,000/- and not due to any direction from the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties never promised that if the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- the entire loan liability would be avoided.
The 2nd opposite party is not an authority to include or exclude any account in NPA category or CIBIL schedule. It happened on performance of the loan account. The opposite party several time demanded the payment of loan amount through debtors legal notice as well as directly but the complainant and his daughter failed to pay the loan amount. As a result, the loan account was classified as NPA on 31/07/2015 as per the norms of RBI. The Government of Kerala announced the educational loan repayment support scheme in the year 2017-18 and the complainant had applied the benefit of the said scheme on online mode. On 02/08/2017 the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- but he has not paid Rs.4,400/- towards the expenses of recovery proceedings such as advocate fees, notice charges and conveyance charges for the personal visit et. Later as per the instruction of the complainant, the opposite party debited the amount from the saving account of the complainant. The complainant has no interruption to use or operate his saving account freely. The opposite party has no authority to remove the name of defaulters from CIBIL or any other credit information agency as per RBI policies and extent guidelines. The outstanding balance amount in the loan account is Rs..1,58,541/- as on 28/02/2019. If the government reject the ELRS application of the complainant, the complainant and his daughter Fathima Kabeer has jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount and the interest from 01/03/2019. The complainant has no right to get any relief as prayed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of complainant.
Ragolu Koteswara Rao, who is the authorized signatory of the opposite parties field proof affidavit for and behalf of the opposite party and Ext.B1 was marked.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence we would like to consider following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what are relief and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2.
It is admitted by the both parties, the complainant and his daughter Fathima Kabeer had availed an educational loan of Rs.1,47,000/- on 11/08/2011 from the 1st opposite party. The complainant admitted that the said Fathima Kabeer has completed her studies during July 2014. According to the complainant, he and his daughter were not able to start the repayment of the loan only because the said Fathima Kabeer did not get any job after the completion of her course. It is also admitted that on 02/08/2017 the complainant had paid Rs.60,000/- towards the loan amount. The complainant admitted that his amount was paid by him after the initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings by the opposite parties. Though the complainant submitted that there was a mutual agreement between the complainant and 2nd opposite party that fixed the liability of the complainant and her daughter as Rs.60,000/-, he did not produce any evidence to prove the same. Ext.A2, the photocopy of Madhyamam daily proves that the government has announced an educational loan repayment support scheme during the year 2017-18. Ext.A3 proves that complainant had applied for the said scheme. But the complainant had not produce any evidence to show that the government had sanctioned education loan repayment support scheme in favour of the daughter of the complainant and agreed to pay the balance amount due to the opposite party in the educational loan account of complainant and his daughter. On the otherhandExt.B1 proves that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.1,86,682/- as on 15/12/2020. On perusal of Ext.B1, we can see that the complainant had not paid any amount towards the loan account from 31/10/2018 onwards. Another contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has declared the savings account of the complainant’s account 622102010002442 as Non Performing Asset (NPA) recovery. On perusal of Ext.A1 we can see that there was a debit of Rs.2,000/- on 15/10/2018 and debit of Rs.1,200/- on 31/10/2018 and further on 31/10/2018 a debit of Rs.1,200/- towards the head of NPA recovery. But on perusal of Ext.A1 we cannot see any entry to the effect that declared as NPA. On the other hand the opposite party submitted that they had not declared a saving account of the complainant as NPA. Thus we are of the opinion that complainant had failed to prove this contention that the opposite party illegally declared his savings account as NPA.
Another contention of the complainant is that the opposite party is illegally included his name in CIBIL, but he had not produced any document to show that the name of the complainant and his daughter has been included in the CIBIL. The opposite party contented that they have no authority either to include or exclude the name of any person in the CIBIL. According to the opposite party the inclusion and exclusion of the name of any person in the CIBIL schedule is based up on the performance in repayment of their loan.
In the light of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case with cogent evidence and the complaint is to be dismissed. Hence complaint dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of January, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. M.K. Anto, MemberSd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of bank pass book (A/c No.622102010002442)
A2 : Copy of Madhyamam daily dtd.27/04/2017
A3 : Application for Education Loan Repayment Support Scheme by Fathima
Kabeer dtd.21/10/17
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
B1 : Statement of account for the period from 02/08/2016 to 15/12/2020 in
account no.622106220000032)
By Order
Senior Superintendent
