Advocate for the Complainant- Sri M.M.Mishra.

Advocate for the Opp.Party.   – Sri B.C.Pradhan.

                                                               Date of filing of the case – 22.05.2014

                                                               Date of order of the case  - 14.01.2015

JUDGMENT.

Sri P.Samantara,President.

                  In brief, the complainant petitioner availed an I segment Advances, Flood in Orissa,2003, special loan to employees of Government/PSUS and Private Sector undertakings and granted a loan of Rs 1,72,000/- on dt.20.10.2003 by proposed monthly repayment of Rs 2,236/- in contract that on the loan will be charged at 1.5% P.M. below PLR/SBAR/ which is currently effective @ 9.5% with quarterly rests and the interest rate is subject to revision from time to time.

2.              The complainant averred, the personal loan account No. 11342115343. The drawing and disbursing officer was the guarantor as to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The pay slip issued by the drawing and disbursing authority of the complainant show that in the month of April 2014 the last deduction of installment was effected and no outstanding of loan account persists to note.

3.               It is also complained, the complaint petitioner has been intimated vide letter No.PBD/57/84(19) dt.23.12.22013 that an irregular amount of Rs 49,172/- was due on him and from this date of notice, failing to repay the over due amount, the bank will proceed to recover dues and also publish the photographs of both borrower and guarantor as the defaulter in newspaper which amounts to irreparable loss that cannot be recovered and also averred the bank has issued a advocate notice on dt.14.05.2014 praying not to recover the unreasoned demanded amount from him. Relied on a notice dated 23.12.2013. deduction slip No.26,25 and 24/ 91-21-1`,respectively and affidavit.

4.                    The O.P appeared and filed the version admitting the complaint petitioner has availed the personal loan and has been charged with interest 12.75% per annum against a borrowing of Rs 1,72,000/- and also advancing the borrower has been agreed to the floating rate of interest.

5.                   The O.P also averred, the petitioner has been issued with notice on dated 23.12.2013 for the payment of Rs 39,172/-  and by the advocate on dt.14.05.2014 to pay a sum of Rs 31,318/- as the out standing amount and the petitioner had not responded at any point of time and also stating the relevant clause No.5 of the agreement and also irrevocable  letter of authority as declared with.

6.                    The O.P thereafter contended the complaint is not maintainable. The case relates to “creditor” and “debtor” within purview of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioner has entered into an agreement for sanction and payment of personal loan through her D.D.O. So the indulgence of this forum cannot be invoked by the petitioner against the O.P in the manner set forth in the complaint. Further stating, there is no valid cause of action for the complaint. The complaint is barred by law of limitation. The D.D.O of the petitioner has not been impleaded as a party. The petitioner is not a consumer. This O.P has not committed any deficiency of service whatever in the eye of law above all the petitioner has not approached the banking Ombudsman as per the rule. So the complain is bad in law. Relied on personal loan application form, Arrangement letter, Salary Certificate, letter dated 20.10.2003, irrevocable letter of Authority, Notice dated 23.23.2013 & dt.14.05.2014 and Statement of Account- 11342115343 dt. 08.07.2014.

7.                    Heard the complaint petitioner and the learned advocates, at both end. Perused the records, available and documents in photo copies and submissions & arguments thereof.

8.                   On the preliminary issue we considered in ;availing the personal loan, the complaint petitioner is a bonafide consumer within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the case is maintainable as the notice is issued on the date of 23.12.2013 amply revealing within the barred of limitation and sufficient cause of action that tends to. The case also does not suffer any jurisdictional limit so in the above circumstances of law the case is maintainable in this Forum.

9.                   On the subsequent stage, the petitioners advance was that the deduction slips as enclosed original say the drawing and disbursing authority has deducted and remitted the installments of 40 nos. as per the agreed terms and conditions and the relevant slips amply justify the committed installments as due and rule has been collected without any intimation to the guarantor being a public authority in charge.

10.                   The arrangement letter  -(Annexure-II) of O.P clause  on “Floating rate of interest” reads- Interest on the loan will be charged at 1.5% per annum below PLR/SBAR which is currently 11% per annum (The current effective rate being 9.5% per annum with quarterly rests. The rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time and you shall be deemed to have notice of changes in the rate of interest whenever the changes in PLR/SBAR/SBMTLR are displayed notified at/by the branch/published in news paper/made through entry of interest charged in the pass book/statement of account sent to you etc. The bank has the option to reduce or increase the EMI or extend the repayment being consequent upon changes in PLR/SBAR/SBMTLR. In the event of a default in payment or any irregularity in account the Bank reserves the right……….  On such back drop with extensive perusal we do not find any document corroborating to have the branch has notified the petitioner at its notice board, published in news paper made through entry of pass book or intimating by way of statement within effected time and same is not adduced by way of document, which is a shortcoming on the part of the bank and also as per expressed terms of contract the bank has recover by due process of laws in view of the agreement clause, for which we conclusively say the branch is at fault and deficient in rendering service as to the provision of the consumer protection Act Thus the negligence and liable to pay.

                     Hence ordered;

                     The case is allowed on contest. The O.P is hereby directed to waive out the floating interest as charged from the date of  first installment till last equated monthly installments paid but he can recover penal interest on the defaulted EMI if any. Further the O.P is liable to pay Rs 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, towards compensation for the loss, harassment and mental agony sustained and Rs 500/-(Rupees Five hundred) only, towards litigation expenses  incurred within 45 days of this order, failing which the compensation land cost amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till from the date of application till realization

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014.

                      I  agree.                       I agree.

                     Sd/-                               Sd/-                                   Sd/-

                 ( S.Rath)                       (G.K.Rath)                       (P.Samantara)

                 MEMBER.                   MEMBER.                       PRESIDENT.