STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 08.10.2024 Reserved on : 12.11.2025 Date of Decision : 01.12.2025 Bank of India having its Branch Office at City Centre, Amritsar, Punjab through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer.

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Mr.Omeetinder Singh.

2. Mr.Ranjit Singh Both residents of R/o 491, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar, Punjab-

143006.

……..Respondents No.1&2/Complainants

3. Canara Bank through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer having its Branch Office at Majitha Road, Amritsar, Punjab.

……Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2

2) First Appeal No.704 of 2024 Date of institution : 13.11.2024 Reserved on : 12.11.2025 Date of Decision : 01.12.2025

1. Omeetinder Singh, son of Ranjit Singh, R/o 491, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar. Mob.No.9914440275, Aadhaar Card No.7014-

7717-1854.

2. Ranjit Singh, son of Buta Singh, R/o 491, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar, Mob.No.9814456109, Aadhaar Card No.2571-2177-

7807.

….Appellants/Complainants Versus

1. Bank of India through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer having its Branch Office at City Centre, Amritsar.

2. Canara Bank through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer, having its Branch Office at Majitha Road, Amritsar.

……Respondents/Opposite Parties First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar in CC No.710 of 2019.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes/No Present:- (in FA No.581 of 2024)

For the appellant : Sh.S.S.Gill, Advocate For respondents No.1&2: Sh.Chetan Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.3 : None SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

By this common order of ours, the aforementioned two First Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.581 of 2024 titled as “Bank of India Vs. Mr.Omeetinder Singh & Ors.”, filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and First Appeal No.704 of 2024 titled as “Omeetinder Singh & Anr. Vs. Bank of India & Anr.”, filed by the Respondents/Complainants shall be disposed off/decided by the common order as same questions of law and facts are involved therein.

Appellant/OP No.1 under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘The Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short ‘the District Commission’) whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed. FA No.704 of 2024 has been filed by Respondents/Complainants for modification of the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

3. The facts are being extracted from FA No.581 of 2024 titled as “Bank of India Vs. Mr.Omeetinder Singh & Ors.”, filed by the Appellant/OP No.1.

4. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.

First Appeal No.581 of 2024

5. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are the Complainant No.1 Mr.Omeetinder Singh had obtained Educational Loan for an amount of Rs.61,9425/- in the year 2009. He had opened Account No.630972210000017 along with his father Ranjit Singh i.e. Complainant No.2, with OP No.1. OP No.2 was the Nodal Bank for the release of the subsidy in the case of the Complainant through HRD Ministry of Government of India. Under the said scheme, interest subsidy was to be paid to the student for availing the Educational Loan scheme of the Indian Bank’s Association for professional courses for the period of moratorium (i.e. course period plus one year or six months after getting job, whichever is earlier.) OP No.1 had only credited the