No responsibility or liability persists if exemption been granted through Government MoU

Canara Bank Vs Piyush Tripathi (NCDRC Delhi)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that when Government of India had itself exempted the Petitioner from any obligation to verify the Interest Subsidy Schemes received from any Bank other than the Petitioner/Bank itself then the Petitioner cannot be hold responsible.

Facts: In present facts of the case, the present Revision Petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by against the impugned Order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case was that 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 was 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. 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 were paying the same regularly to them. In the month of April 2019, the Complainants came to know about 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 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.

Aggrieved by the act of the Union Bank of India and Canara Bank, the Complainant filed a Complaint before District Forum. The District Forum observed as under:

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.