CANARA BANK Vs. PIYUSH TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition under Sec. 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Canara Bank against the impugned Order dtd. 29/9/2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal No. 745 of 2019 vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that Piyush Tripathi is the son of Surinder Tripathi. For the higher study of Complainant No. 1, the Complainant No. 2 raised an Educational loan of Rs.7,50,000.00 from the Union Bank of India. The gross annual income of the Complainants and their family is Rs.3,40,000.00. The Central Govt. of India launched an Interest Rate Subsidy Scheme for education loan for students who belong to Economically Weaker Sec. (EWS). Under the Scheme, the Govt. of India was to provide "full interest subsidy" during the period of moratorium which is defined as the course period plus one year or six month after getting job. The Subsidy Scheme was applicable from the academic year 2009-10 as per guidelines of Central Govt. The Complainant No. 1 being borrower along with the Complainant No. 2 being co-borrower raised the Educational loan of Rs.7,50,000.00 for study purpose of B.Tech (Electrical Engineering) in Thapar University, Patiala, vide application dtd. 23/6/2014. After completion of the loan formalities, the Union Bank of India disbursed the instalment amount of Rs.1,25,000.00 on 24/6/2014. The other instalment amounts were disbursed on different dates i.e. 2/1/2015, 14/7/2015, 1/1/2016, 16/7/2016 and 16/12/2016. At the time of disbursing the aforesaid loan amount, the Respondent No. 3/Bank assured the Complainants that they will charge the interest on the educational loan as per norms of RBI and Central Govt. The Respondent No. 3/Bank fixed the repayment instalment of said loan to the amount of Rs.16,000.00 and the Complainants are paying the same regularly to them.

(3.) In the month of April 2019, the Complainants came to know of the Scheme of the Central Govt. that provides "full interest subsidy". The Complainants then obtained statement of their loan account on date 3/4/2019, wherein the Respondent No. 3 Bank did not provide them the interest subsidy as per Scheme of the Central Govt. As such, the Respondent No. 3/Bank violated the fair trade practice and committed deficiency of service causing large monetary loss to the Complainants. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 3/Bank did not provide the subsidy because of their malafide intentions. The Complainants then approached the Respondent No. 3/Bank to provide the subsidy but the Respondent No. 3/Bank did not pay any heed to their request. On the other hand, it demanded Income Certificate from the Complainants, in compliance of which the Complainant No. 2 provided such Certificate dtd. 6/2/2018 which was issued by Tehsildar Nawashahr. The Respondent No. 3/Bank was approached by the Complainants repeatedly but they flatly refused to admit the claim of the Complainants. The Complainant No. 1 completed his degree of B.Tech in July 2017 and as such the Respondent No. 3/Bank should have provided the interest subsidy as per the Scheme of the Govt. of India. The Petitioner Bank herein was the nodal Bank for educational loans, and hence their impleadment was necessary.