Bank officials were ordered to pay the amount of the subsidy into the borrower’s savings account with interest, in addition to paying him 35,000 rupees as compensation for the unfair practice.
In 2014, HMT Layout resident NG Chetan Kumar and his father Ganganna approached the Sudhamanagar branch of the bank for a student loan. Ganganna, who earned only 95,000 rupees a year, produced a certificate from the tahsildar of Bengaluru North taluk to the banking authorities to show that they belonged to the economically weaker section of society. The father and son applied for an interest-subsidized education loan offered by the Indian government to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, which the SBI branch manager blatantly refused. Keeping Chetan’s future in mind, Ganganna offered his house worth Rs 95 lakh as collateral and secured a loan of Rs 15 lakh.
Chetan then completed his medical degree at Texila American University, specializing in pulmonary medicine. On September 18, 2020, the doctor released his SBI student loan, including interest and additional fees, saving his father’s house. On January 4, 2021, he approached the branch manager of the bank in Sudhamanagar to seek reimbursement of the interest subsidy amount for his fully repaid student loan. Despite multiple requests, the bank demanded that no interest subsidy be granted for a guaranteed student loan.
In February 2021, the doctor contacted the Bengaluru 1st Rural and Urban Supplementary District Consumer Dispute Redress Forum in Shantinagar, with a complaint against SBI for service deficiency. The bank’s lawyer argued that the doctor only contacted the court after closing the loan amount, which meant that he had the ability to repay it and did not belong to the party economically the most. weakest in society. In the event that the doctor’s request is taken into account, a Pandora’s box will be opened and anyone who has cleared student loans with the bank will try to seek reimbursement of the amount paid in the form of interest, he said. he adds.
On May 17, the consumer forum noted that the bank’s approach was flawed. According to the bank’s scheme, collateral is obtained for loans above Rs 7.5 lakh and up to Rs 20 lakh. The judges said that the interest subsidy should be granted irrespective of the amount of the loan, provided that the student belongs to the economically weaker stratum of society and has a family income of less than Rs 4.5 lakh per year. year. Parents’ annual income has been increased to Rs 8 lakh per year.
In view of this, the bank’s assertion that the plaintiff is wealthy because he owns a property worth Rs 95 lakh and has repaid the loan and is therefore not eligible for the grant cannot be accepted.