State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Central Bank Of India And Others vs Vp Saini And Another on 4 April, 2016
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.93 of 2013
Date of institution: 28.01.2013
Date of decision: 04.04.2016
1. Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India, Corporate
Office, Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
2. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office,
470, Lajpat Nagar Market, Model Town, Jallandhar City.
3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Bela Road, Ropar.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
1. V.P. Saini son of Sh. Ajit Ram Saini
2. Sankalp Saini son of Sh. V.P. Saini
Both residents of House No.3039, Bela Chowk, Ropar.
......Complainants/Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
26.11.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ropar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Mohinder Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : None
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No.311 of 2013
Date of institution : 19.03.2013
1. V.P. Saini son of Sh. Ajit Ram Saini
2. Sankalp Saini son of Sh. V.P. Saini
F.A. No. 93 of 2013 2
Both residents of House No.3039, Bela Chowk, Ropar.
...Appellants/Complainants
Versus
1. Central Bank of India through its Chairman & Managing Director,
Corporate Office, Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
2. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office,
470, Lajpat Nagar Market, Model Town, Jallandhar City.
3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Bela Road, Ropar.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 26.11.2012 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Quorum:-
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Jasbir Singh Gill,Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondent :Sh.Mohinder Singh, Advocate
MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER:-
ORDER
This order will dispose of both the above mentioned appeals as these appeals are arising out of the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 passed in Consumer Complaint No.91 dated 01.08.2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short the "District Forum") vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed and OP was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 01.08.2012 till date of payment. It was further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation costs within F.A. No. 93 of 2013 3 a period of two months from the date of receipt of this copy of this order.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986(in short `the Act') against OPs on the averments that complainants had applied for educational loan for a sum of Rs14.50 lac under the "cent Vidyarthi" Scheme. Complainant No.1 was applicant/borrower and complainant No.2 was joint applicant/borrower. On 15.06.2011 OPs had accepted the loan applications from complainants for three years full time integrated programme in planning and Entrepreneurship session 2010-13 from IIPM Institute SAS Nagar, Mohali which have strategic alliance with IMI (International Institute of Belgium). On 29.8.2011 complainants visited the office of OP No.2 to enquire the education loan and OP No.2 advised the complainants to submit the revised loan amount application up to Rs.7.5 lac as no collateral security was required for that amount. Complainants had submitted the revised loan application on 29.08.2011. OPs had sanctioned the education loan to the tune of Rs.7.5 lac vide letter No.RD/Jal/ADV/11-12/1551 dated 26.12.2011. OPs had disbursed only one installment of Rs.2,27,500/- on 01.02.2012 to Institute i.e. IIPM and refused to disburse the remaining educational loan amount of Rs.5.23 lac. Complainant also submitted the document of Sh. Shamsher Singh as a guarantor whereas OP No.2 attached this document with another loan file of Swaran Lal. It was evident from the letters dated 15.10.2011 and 22.12.2011. OPs had demanded another guarantor in place of Shamsher Singh whereas; no collateral security was required for education loan up to Rs.7.5 lac under the scheme. Complainant got procured five blank signed cheques no.031156 to 031160 issued by AXIS Bank Ropar as securities. After refusal of disbursing the remaining loan amount complainants arranged 7 lac and deposited in the Institute to F.A. No. 93 of 2013 4 continue study of complainant No.2. They also made a representation before Banking Ombudsman vide letter dated 23.03.2011, 29.08.2011, 21.09.2011, 04.01.2012 & 07.04.2012 and said authority disposed of their representation with liberty to avail judicial remedy if not satisfied . Refusal of disbursing the remaining amount of Rs.5.23 lac amounted to deficiency in services on the part of OPs. Hence, they filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking following directions against OPs:
(i) to release the remaining education loan amount i.e. Rs.5.23 lac;
(ii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.
3. Complaint was contested by OP NO 1&2 only. They filed joint written reply by taking preliminary objections that complaint was bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. Complainants had failed to disclose any cause of action against these OPs. Loan was sanctioned by OP3 and first installment of Rs.2.27,500/- was disbursed to institute and remaining installments were not disbursed by OP3. Matter was already decided by banking Ombudsman. It was true that Banking Ombudsman as a courtesy allowed the complainants to avail any judicial remedy in case not satisfied with their order and that findings of Banking Ombudsman operated as res-judicata between the parties in respect of the matter in issue, therefore, complaint was not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that complainants applied for educational loan on 29.8.2011 for pursuing of studies by complainant No.2. There was no delay in processing the loan application of complainants. A sum of Rs.2,27,500/- was disbursed on 08.02.2012 not on 1.2.2012 in favour of IIPM under the request of complainant and sanctioned letter was issued on 26.12.2011. Loan was sanctioned, as per the instructions issued vide circular no 839 F.A. No. 93 of 2013 5 dated 19.12.2011 and bank was bound by the same. First installment of education loan Rs 2,27,500/- disbursed to the complainants through Institute i.e. IIPM. Complainants deposited the remaining fee from their own source therefore, remaining payment could not be disbursed to them under the provisions of scheme. These OPs tried to help and assist the complainants regarding waiver off security of equitable mortgage. There was no deficiency in their service. All other averments were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Branch Manager on behalf of OP No. 3 was appeared before District Forum but did not file the written reply.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of the averments, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1 along with other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30 and closed their evidence. On other hand OPs had into evidence affidavit of Sh. T.P. Singh, Branch Manager Central Bank of India, Bela Road, Roopnagar, as Ex.R-1 along with other documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-15 and closed their evidence.
7. After going through the allegations alleged in the complaint, written reply filed by OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as referred above.
8. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Ld. District Forum, the appellants/OPs have preferred the present appeal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant/OP as no one appeared on behalf of Respondent/Complainant and carefully gone through the record of the District Forum.
FIRST APPEAL NO.93 OF 2013 filed by OPs.
10. It was argued by the counsel for OPs that District Forum without F.A. No. 93 of 2013 6 appreciating the entire evidence on the record had allowed the complaint on the ground that OPs were deficient in rendering the service whereas, loan amount of Rs 2,27,500/- was disbursed to the complainants on 8.2.2012 through institute i.e. IIPM, but remaining amount of Rs 5,23,000/- was refused to disburse as complainants requested that balance amount be paid to them directly, that was against terms and conditions of the scheme. Complainants were required to pay the interest on the disbursed amount but they did not pay any interest after the disbursal amount of Rs 2,27,500/-. District Forum had observed that complainants were not entitled for remaining loan amount as they directly deposited the amount in the institute from their own sources. Complainants have to disclose the sources within 3 months as per clause 4.3 of the scheme but they failed to disclose their sources of amount. When main relief was declined then there was no question of harassment. They prayed for to set aside the impugned order and acceptance of the appeal.
11. Clause 4.3 of "Instruction Circular No.839 dated 19.12.2011"
reads as under:
"Reimbursement of above expenses already incurred loan taken from identified sources (to meet the contingencies by the applicant on merits is allowed, subject to production of original receipts within three months from the date of payment of fees expenses incurred. "Further, it was also mentioned under condition no 2 of the sanctioned letter dated 26.12.2011 (EXR5) that loan to be disbursed in stages as per requirement / demand directly to the institution.
12. There was a specific condition that loan was to be disbursed as per requirement /demand directly to the institute. There was no demand letter issued by the institution regarding the fee. OPs F.A. No. 93 of 2013 7 had released a sum of Rs.2,27,500/- to the institute i.e. IIPM and refused to disburse the remaining educational loan amount i.e.5.23 lac as complainants had deposited the fee from their own sources. It was against condition no.2 of the scheme if remaining loan amount was to be disbursed to the complainants directly. Further, complainants failed to disclose the funds from their own sources within three month from the date of payment as per condition no 4.3 of the scheme. Complainants have to abide the terms and conditions of the scheme because both the parties were bound by those conditions. District Forum rightly observed that complainant failed to disclose even the own sources, therefore, they were not entitled for remaining amount of education loan as per scheme.
13. While deciding the compliant District Forum did not return the findings whether complainants were liable to pay the interest on the disbursed loan amount of Rs 2,27,500/-. Complainants admitted that OPs released a sum of Rs.2,27,500/- to the institute. Complainants have to pay the interest as per agreement up to the date of repay the loan amount.
14. In view of the above discussion First Appeal No.93 of 2013 of the OPs is allowed. The complainants are directed to pay the interest on disbursed amount of Rs 2,27,500/- as per bank norms.
15. A sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has been accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the Appellant/ OP NO3 by way of a crossed cheque/ demand draft after the expiry of 45 day of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties subject to stay if any by any higher Fora/ Court.
F.A. No. 93 of 2013 8FIRST APPEAL No.311 OF 2013.
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant for modification of the impugned order of the District Forum on the ground that they were entitled for remaining education loan amount of Rs.5,23,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac for mental tension and harassment.
2. OPs had released a sum of Rs.2,27,500/- to the institute i.e. IIPM. Under the policy loan was to be disbursed as per requirement /demand directly to the institute. There was no demand letter issued by the institution regarding deposit of the balance fee issued to OPs or complainant produced the same to OPs. Remaining educational loan amount i.e.5.23 lac was deposited by the complainants from their own sources. Complainants failed to disclose that the funds were deposited from their own sources within three month from the date of payment as per condition no 4.3 of the scheme. Therefore, they were not entitled for release of the remaining amount of education loan as per scheme.
3. Further, complainants alleged that they applied for education loan on 15.06.2011(ExC1). Due to delay in sanction of the loan, complainants deposited the loan amount from their own sources but OPs denied of having received the loan application on 15.6.2011 and pleaded that loan application was received on 29.8.2011. Complainants averred that they met OP2 regarding loan who advised them to revise the loan application by reducing the loan amount up to 7.5 lac because no collateral security was required up to that amount and they submitted revised loan application on 29.8.2011 (ExC2). Therefore, the loan application was considered as dated 29.8.2011 because complainants had revised the loan amount i.e.7.5 lac on that day and give up their first loan application of Rs 14.50 (ExC1).
F.A. No. 93 of 2013 9
4. Under clause no 9 of the scheme OPs will sanction/ rejection will be communicated within 15 days of receipt duly completed application with supporting documents". District Forum wrongly observed that there was delay in sanctioning the loan due to that complainant was compelled to deposit the loan amount to his own pocket. Ops were deficient in their services, then complainant was entitled for compensation. However, vide RO/JAL/ADV/11-12 dated 2.9.2011 (ExC29) informed the complainants regarding loan application. So, within 15 days from the receipt of the loan application i.e.29.8.2011 OPs duly informed the complainants regarding fate of the loan. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of OPs and no deficiency in service on the part of OPs thus, complainant was not entitled for any compensation.
5. In view of the above discussion First Appeal No. 311 of 2013 filed by the complainants is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
6. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
7. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) April 4, 2016 MEMBER SK F.A. No. 93 of 2013 10