BANK OF BARODA Vs. SHUBHAM SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) By these Revision Petitions, preferred under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a Branch and the Regional Office as well as the Head Office of the Bank of Baroda, arrayed as Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the Complaints under the Act, call in question the correctness and legality of a common Order dtd. 20/2/2018, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeals No.670/2017 and 671/2017. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed both the Appeals, which had been preferred by the Petitioners herein against two Orders, both dtd. 15/5/2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tonk, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Cases No. 304/2015 and 305/2015. By the said Orders, while allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents herein, the District Commission had directed the Petitioners to pay to: (i) the Respondent in the first case sums of Rs.5,279.00 and Rs.9,779.89 towards monetary loss and Rs.1,00,000.00 as compensation for mental and physical agony; and (ii) the Respondent in the second case sums of Rs.52,901.00 and Rs.17,908.75 towards monetary loss and Rs.1,00,000.00 as compensation for mental and physical agony. These amounts were directed to be credited in the loan accounts of the respective Respondent herein along with 9% simple interest from the date of filing of the Complaints. By way of default clause, it was directed by the District Commission that if the aforesaid amounts were not paid within one month, then the same would be paid along with 12% simple interest. Further, the Petitioners were directed to deposit the amount of interest subsidy to be accrued in future on the loan account of the respective Respondent, and pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000.00 in each of the two cases. The District Commission had also given liberty to the Petitioners to proceed with the Departmental Enquiry against the delinquent Officers and to recover the awarded amounts from them if they are found guilty in the said enquiry.

(3.) The facts in both the Cases vis-'-vis the cause of action, reliefs prayed for in the Complaints and granted by the District Commission and upheld by the State Commission are similar. Briefly stated, the facts in the Cases are that both the Respondents, who were brothers, had taken educational loan from the Petitioner Bank in the year 2010, where-after they had taken admission in the four year B. Tech Course. Every year they were required to deposit the interest charged on the principal amount and the installments of the principal amount were to be paid after one year of completing the said Course or after six months of getting the job, whichever was earlier. After some time, the Central Government had passed a Scheme, under which the interest charged for a period of five years was to be given to the Respondents as subsidy, as, according to them, they were eligible for the same and had also submitted relevant documents with the Petitioner Bank in this behalf. However, full subsidy under the said Scheme was not provided to them. According to the Respondents, in response to their query under Right to Information Act, 2005, the Petitioner Bank had admitted that for that lapse the Bank Officers were responsible. Even thereafter, the subsidy was not provided to the Respondents, which amounted to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Bank as also monetary loss and physical/mental agony to the Respondents. Accordingly, both the Respondents filed their respective Complaint before the District Commission, praying for the reliefs, enumerated therein.