ABHEY RATTAN LAMBA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by the complainants against order dated 25. 7. 2006 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Union Territory Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of appellants (complainants) was dismissed with no order as to costs.

(2.) THE appellant No. 1 Sh. Abhe Rattan Lamba got education loan in the month of September,92 with a limit of Rs. 2. 5 lakh. He had executed the requisite loan documents on 4. 8. 92. However, on 15. 11. 1992 he had requested the respondents to reduce the limit of loan from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 and subsequently issued reminders on 20. 12. 1992 and 22. 12. 1992. Ultimately, respondents on 15. 4. 1999 allowed concession in the interest treating the limit to be Rs. 2,00,000 i. e. it was reduced from 19. 75 % to 14% retrospectively with effect from 20. 12. 1992 and thus passed interest benefit of Rs. 29,607 to appellant No. 1. According to respondents, as per letter Annexure C-6, Canara Bank had received request of appellant No. 1 Shri Abhey Rattan Lamba on 20. 12. 1992 and from that date the benefit had been extended because the interest had been lowered from 19. 75% to 14% and thus extended the benefit of Rs. 29,607 as stated above. It is true that respondent had taken more than 7 years to give concession but the concession had been given from the date when respondent had received the request of appellant No. 1 to reduce the limit and as such there should not be any grievance to the appellants on this score.

(3.) THE allegation of respondents is that appellant No. 1 had not adhered to the repayment schedule which attracted penal charges and further he had changed university which he did not inform for a sufficiently long time and did not take prior permission to change the university as mentioned in Annexure C-6. Originally Sh. Abhey Rattan Lamba had taken loan for getting admission in Louisiana University of USA but later on he got admission in Connecticut University. It is stated that appellant No. 1 had applied on 4. 3. 1993 for approval of change of university in 1-20 form with a copy of foreign exchange department as the course in the university was to be completed in December, 95. There is no documentary evidence on file that respondents had agreed in principle for change of university. There was of course delay in extending the concession because the interest was agreed to be 19. 75 and that had to be charged even if the limit sanction is not availed or part of it is availed but keeping in view that appellant No. 1 had paid major part of the loan and only Rs. 38,268 remained outstanding and further he was employed in America and intended to open account with the bank, the rate of interest was decreased as a special case. Thus, it was done as a goodwill gesture, although, it was not permitted under rules and regulations of the bank. Of course, he had been charged some amount as penalty for not making payment of the instalments on due dates. Appellants could not have changed the university or place of education unilaterally because the consent of respondents was required.