The record is taken up for ex-parte order which has arisen out of complainant’s application as filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act. 1986.  The fact of the case, in brief, is that complainant took one house building loan from the Axis Bank Ltd., Asset Sales Centre (hereinafter to be mentioned as OP) amounting Rs. 5,22,654/- and complainant entered into a loan agreement as a borrower with the OP which was executed on 21.06.2017(Annexure-A).  The rate of interest of the loan was fixed as 9.75% upto the tenure of 60 months along with EMI amount of Rs. 11,041/-.  The complainant was not handed over with the total sanction loan amount of Rs. 5,22,654/- but OP handed over only the amount of Rs. 3,42,252/-,  insurance was paid at the tune of 22,654/- amounting total of Rs. 3,64,906/-.  The OP also took a sum of Rs. 11,615/- as processing fees for the said loan.  The complainant took the said loan for the construction and completion of the second floor while ground floor was already constructed.  It is further contended in the complaint that OP intentionally deprived the complainant. The bank officials came to measure the building/house and during their estimation process they did not include the ground floor of the building/house.  The construction of the house of the complainant remained incomplete because of unfair activity of the OP and complainant faced many problems because of the unavailability of the total amount of the home loan which was sanctioned by the OP but was the handed over the complainant, as the complainant was not given the rest amount of the home loan amounting to Rs. 1,57,748/- and it is the further contention of the complainant that if the construction of his house/building would have been completed then he would have received the rent from the house/building and would have been in a position to repay the loan amount of the OP.  Hence this case seeking return of the remaining due amount of loan of Rs. 1,57,748/- with up to date interest till the date of actual payment as well as compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the OP for mental agony harassment and also for other charges. 

The complainant in support of his case has filed some documents which are as follows:-

1. Home loan executed dtd. 21.06.2017, Annexure-A.
2. Disbursement request form, Annexure-B.
3. Bank statement of the complainant, Annexure-C.

Contd….P/2

-2-

4. Bank statement regarding disbursement and letter of bank to the complainant dtd. 06.07.2017, Annexure-D.
5. Letter to OP issued by Deputy Assistant Director-in-Charge Consumer Affairs And FBP Siliguri Region Office, Annexure-E.

Complainant subsequently at the time of argument furnished the above documents in originals.  It is to be noted here that from the very beginning the case has been running ex-parte against the OP while it appears from order No.7 dtd. 12.10.2018 that even inspite of receiving of summon/notice duly served on 16.08.2018 did not appear in this case till that date. We have perused the affidavit in chief as filed by the complainant of this case as his evidence and also we have gone through the written notes on argument as furnished by the complainant side bearing in mind the oral submission of the Ld advocate of the complainant during argument of the case.  We have particularly gone through the document as filed by the complainant here in this case as mentioned above. During consideration from the statement of the bank account it appears that the complainant after handing over the amount of Rs. 3,42,252/- did not pay the installments as against the loan amount  in time which at the very beginning is within the agreement that EMI was fixed at Rs. 11,041/- at the tenure of 60 installments right from the beginning and the complainant in Paragraph No.15 of the complaint admitted that if the construction of the building would have been completed the complainant would have receive some revenue out of the rent from the house/building and would have been in a position to repay the loan amount to the OP.  In this context it is to be borne in our mind that the maxim of equity is very much applicable here in this case in respect of the complainant which says “He who seek equity must do equity” or “He who comes to equity must come with clean hands”.  The complainant himself remained on erring position  as the terms of agreement were not complied with by him particularly as regards payment of EMIs for which this court of law being District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum which is guided by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. 1986, can not stand with the complainant’s allegation against the OP of this case.  There exists no iota of evidence to show that the OP committed deficiency in service on its part against the complainant and the matter of unfair trade practice is not at all established against the OP. Thus the complainant has

Contd….P/3

-3-

miserably failed to prove his case and as such we are of the considered view that complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claim for.  Hence, it is

Ordered,

that the instant case being number 53/S/2018 be and the same is dismissed on ex-parte against the OP and accordingly disposed of.  No order as to cost.  Let a copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties of this case.