IMPORTANT POINT
Unlawful deduction of amount from Bank account is deficiency in service.

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The brief facts are that Mr. Keshav Verma (complainant No.2) took an education loan for Rs.1,50,000/- on 21-03-2007 from the State Bank of Patiala, Sirhind City (OP). It was released in four installments. Complainant started repaying the loan from 3.10.2010, by depositing regular installments of Rs.4,200/-. From 1.4.2009, in academic year 2009-10, the bank launched an interest free education loan scheme for the weaker sections. The complainants also wanted to take benefit under the said interest free loan scheme, but the Branch Manager of OP/Bank refused to entertain the complainants. But on 3.1.2012, bank deducted Rs.67,019.63/- from the complainant No. 2’s account and also refused to give the details of deduction. Then, the complainants got the information through the RTI and came to know that OP 1 deducted the amount unlawfully. Hence, alleging the deficiency in service and unlawful act of OP the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the District Forum).

2. The OP bank filed a written version and resisted the complaint. The OP admitted that they had sanctioned education loan to the complainant in the year 2007, but at that time, no such scheme of interest free education loan was launched. Hence, the complainants are not entitled for interest free educational loan scheme. It was denied that the amount deducted from the account of complainant was without permission of the complainants. It has not caused any loss to the complainant. As per the scheme, the benefit will be given unless the loan was either sanctioned or disbursed after 01-04-2009. Therefore, complainants would not be eligible for interest subsidy under the said loan.

3. On the basis of pleadings and evidence, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the State Commission). The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the OP to refund the excess amount recovered from the complainant, on account of interest accrued which was paid by him after 01-04-2009 till the date of closure of loan. Also the OPs were directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs. Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the OP-Bank filed this revision petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission has wrongly comprehended the scheme of interest free education loan. The loan was sanctioned in the year 2007 and at that time, there was no such scheme in existence. The counsel further submitted that as per the Circular No. PSB/PNS/28/10-11 dated 23.08.2010 under heading, Applicable Academic Year, (para 10) it was stated that the scheme shall be applicable from the academic year 2009-10 starting from 1.4.2009. The scheme shall be applicable only in respect of disbursement made by banks on or after 1st April, 2009 irrespective of date of sanction. However, the interest on disbursement made from 1.4.2009 was eligible for interest subsidy. The loan was sanctioned to the complainant before 1.4.2009, therefore, the complainant was not eligible for the benefit under the said scheme. The counsel also submitted that the deduction of Rs.67,019.63 was done from saving account.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had repaid the loan as Rs.1,50,000/- towards total principal amount along with the applicable interest till 31.12.2013. Therefore, as per scheme, the complainants were eligible to recover the interest paid till 31-12-2013. The counsel further submitted that as per the guidelines, the loan amount cannot be termed as NPA, before expiry of one year from the completion of the course.

6. After our thoughtful consideration, the question to be answered is whether the complainant