Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member
Canara Bank – Petitioner
versus
Piyush Tripathi and Ors. – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1146 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 29/09/2021 in Appeal No. 745/2019 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 25.9.2023
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi and Ms. Shashi Pathak, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1: NEMO
For the Respondent No.2: Ms. Sonia Rampal, Proxy Counsel
For the Respondent No.3 to 5: NEMO
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Banking – Government Schemes – Privity of Contract – Liability of Nodal Agency - Government of India which had appointed the Petitioner Bank as the Nodal Agency for smooth implementation of the Scheme had itself exempted the Petitioner from any obligation to verify the Interest Subsidy Schemes received from any Bank other than the Petitioner/Bank itself, and that in the case of any clarification, if so required, it was for the Ministry of H.R.D. itself to take up the issue with the concerned Banks sanctioning the loan, and even for that purpose, there was no obligation upon the Petitioner/Bank to get any such clarification/documents from any other Bank except those pertaining to its own claims – Therefore, while admittedly the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e. the Complainants did have an actionable case against the Union Bank of India for its omission to faithfully follow the Interest Subsidy Scheme, both the Ld. Fora below had acted erroneously in saddling liability upon the Petitioner Bank for the omission on the part of the Union Bank of India, simply because it was the Nodal Agency for the purpose of the Interest Subsidy Scheme, even though the Memorandum of Understanding from which it had derived its authority, had itself exempted the Petitioner Bank from any such liability – Petition allowed, order partly modified. [Paras 4 to 14].
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Canara Bank against the impugned Order dated 29.09.2021 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 ?7,50,000/- from the Union Bank of India. The gross annual income of the Complainants and their family is Rs.3,40,000/-. The Central Govt. of India launched an Interest Rate Subsidy Scheme for education loan for students who belong to Economically Weaker Section (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/- for study purpose of B.Tech (Electrical Engineering) in Thapar University, Patiala, vide application dated 23.06.2014. After completion of the loan formalities, the Union Bank of India disbursed the instalment amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 24.06.2014. The other instalment amounts were disbursed on different dates i.e. 02.01.2015, 14.07.2015, 01.01.2016, 16.07.2016 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/- 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 03.04.2019, 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 dated 06.02.2018 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.
4. Aggrieved by the act of the Union Bank of India and Canara Bank, the Complainant filed a Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh (SBS) Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “District Commission”) praying for being provided the benefit of the scheme of the Govt. of India and also claimed damages for mental agony and cost of litigation.
5. The District Commission vide its Order dated 09.10.2019 partly allowed the Complaint. The relevant extracts from the Order of the District Commission are set out as below—
“7. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case discussed ab
