National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Branch Manager, State Bank Of Bikaner & ... vs Gaurav @ Vipin Sharma & Anr. on 12 September, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3771 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 09/06/2011 in Appeal No. 252/2009 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & ANR. BRANCH BALOTRA,
DISTRICT : BARMER RAJASTHAN 2. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR HEAD OFFICE , JODHPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GAURAV @ VIPIN SHARMA & ANR. S/O SH.VINOD KUMAR SHARMA,
R/O SAMDARI ROAD,
BALHOTRA, TEHSIL PACHPADRA, DISTRICT : BARMER RAKASTHAN 2. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, BARMER RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 12 Sep 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioners
:
Ms. Savita Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-1
:
Mr. Hari Shankar Tak, Advocate
For the Respondent-2
:
Mr. Harsha Vinoy, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON : 12th SEPTEMBER 2017
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 09.06.2011, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 252/2009, "Gaurav alias Vipin Sharma & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 08.05.2009, passed by the District Forum Camp Balotra in consumer complaint No. 282/2008, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Gaurav @ Vipin Sharma applied for loan to the District Industries Centre, Barmer, Rajasthan under the Scheme for Educated Unemployed Persons, known as the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana. He received training under the said Scheme from 11.01.2007 to 20.01.2007 from the District Industries Centre and a certificate was also issued to him by the General Manager of the Centre. The said Centre then forwarded his application for loan to the opposite party (OP)/petitioner, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for sanctioning the said loan. However, despite completion of certain formalities, the Bank refused to sanction the loan on the plea that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria with regard to his education. The consumer complaint in question bearing No. 282/2008 was then filed before the District Forum Balotra, which decided the same vide their order dated 08.05.2009. The District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that the complainant had not submitted any certificate to the Bank with regard to his educational qualifications. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of appeal No. 252/2009. Vide impugned order dated 09.06.2011, the said appeal was allowed observing as follows:-
"The reason for not sanctioning loan is that he did not produce his certificate of passing VIIIth Class, while mark sheet and certificate is available on record. It has also been produced before us during appeal. On this ground, we find this appeal liable to be allowed. While setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned District Forum the respondent No. 1 and 2 are directed that they must sanction the loan to the appellant within one month on the basis of recommendations given by the Respondent No. 3, District Industries Centre. With these directions, this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs."
3. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the OP Bank is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
4. During arguments before this Commission, the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank stated that the complainant had himself admitted in the consumer complaint filed before the District Forum that he was Xth class fail. Moreover, he had not produced any proof for his educational qualifications. The District Forum had, therefore, rightly dismissed the complaint filed by him. However, the learned counsel admitted that the minimum qualification for the sanction of the loan was that the applicant should have studied upto class VIIIth. The learned counsel further stated that the complainant did not fall under the category of 'consumer' till the loan was sanctioned to him. The consumer complaint was, therefore, not maintainable. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in "Noah Industries vs. Karnataka State Industrial Corporation" [II (1992) CPJ 455 (NC)], in support of her arguments. The learned counsel further stated that the Scheme under which the complainant was seeking loan, had since been abolished in the year 2008. However, a new Scheme known as the "Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme" (PMEGP), had been substituted in place of the original scheme and the educational qualifications under the new Scheme was also the same, i.e., at least VIIIth standard pass.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 1 stated that as observed by the State Commission, the complainant had duly placed on record, a certificate in support of his assertion that he had passed class VIIIth. The learned counsel also stated that if the complainant had stated himself to be Xth fail, it amounted to saying that he had already studied upto class IXth. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, based on a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record and should be upheld.
6. The learned counsel for the District Industries Centre stated that the matter regarding sanction of loan was between the complainant and the Bank and they had no role to play in the same.
7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
8. The main issue that merits consideration in the matter is whether the action of the petitioner Bank in refusing to sanction the loan in favour of the complainant under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana was in order or not. The State Commission have clearly brought out in the impugned order that the complainant had produced evidence in favour of his assertion that he was VIIIth standard pass. The contention raised by the petitioner that the complainant stated himself to be a class Xth fail and hence, he did not fulfil the necessary qualifications, is not tenable at all, because a person who is studying in class Xth is presumed to have acquired his education up to class IXth. Moreover, the case of the complainant for the grant of loan was duly recommended by the District Industries Centre. In fact, it was the duty of the said Centre to have pursued the cases of the unemployed educated youth for the grant of loan with the Bank. It is clear, therefore, that the complainant has suffered a lot due to the non-sanction of the loan by the Bank without any cogent and convincing reason. We, therefore, do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is ordered to be upheld.
9. In so far as the contention of the petitioner Bank that the old Scheme had since been substituted by a new Scheme called the "Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme" (PMEGP), the petitioner bank and the District Industries Centre may take steps to ensure that the complainant gets due benefit under the Scheme prevalent now by completing all necessary formalities in this regard. With these observations, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER