Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/OP Bank challenging the judgment and order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur in Consumer Complaint Case No. 339/2016 allowing the complaint on contest against the Appellant/OP. The Appellant/OP was directed to pay compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively to the Respondent/Complainant within one month from the date of the impugned judgment and order, failing which, as directed, the Appellant/OP should have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day as punitive damage payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund of the said District Forum.

Succinctly put, the facts relevant for disposal of the instant complaint were that the Respondent/Complainant, a retired primary school teacher took the house building loan of Rs. 1,66,000/- from the Appellant/OP Bank. He started paying his EMI from the next month and the loan including interest was allegedly cleared by him in the year, 2010 and the OP issued an NOC on 05.02.2010.

Suddenly on 30.10.2013, the Bank issued a letter to the Complainant with an intimation that an amount of Rs. 66,549/- only was still lying overdue with the Respondent/Complainant in respect of his said loan and pressed him for immediate repayment of the said overdue amount. The spirit of the letter appeared to be absolutely contradictory to the fact, as repayment of the loan amount together with interest was made long before as mentioned above and an NOC to that effect was also issued by the Appellant/OP. Since the Opposite Party was giving threatening for early repayment and made communication to the concerned S I of schools for attaching the pension of the Respondent/Complainant for non-payment of alleged dues, the Respondent/Complainant who was on the verge of retirement, being scared, paid Rs.60,000/- in two instalments of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively.

Subsequently, the aggrieved Respondent/Complainant filed Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum against the deficient banking service rendered to him by the Ld. District Forum with the prayer for refunding of Rs. 60,000/- collected by the Bank illegally from him under threatening along with compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively.

The Appeal was heard ex parte against the Respondent/Complainant.

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/OP described, in brief, the fact in issue and submitted denying every point of allegation brought against his client by the Respondent/Complainant.

As he continued, the Respondent/Complainant paid Rs. 60,000/- out of the claimed amount of Rs. 66,549/-. The rest amount of Rs. 6,549/- was adjusted against the loan as revenue loss.

Ld. Advocate refused to admit that the Appellant/OP ever issued any No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Respondent/Complainant. The NOC which was referred to in the complaint was, as stated, issued on request to ensure smooth release of pension of the Respondent/Complainant. Denying the allegation of writing to the S I of schools any letter with the intention of attaching the pension, the Ld. Advocate continued that the Appellant/OP was careful enough about its not having any authority to issue such letter.

As he continued, the Respondent/Complainant paid the amount of Rs. 60,000/- knowing it well that the said amount was overdue with him against his loan. As continued further, the Respondent/Complainant probably had absented himself from hearing in spite of hearing notices being duly served upon him, realizing the falsity of his claim.

Ld. Advocate prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order and thereby frustrating the dishonest motive of the Respondent/Complainant of deriving an unjust enrichment.

Perused the papers on record and considered submission of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/OP. The papers available with the record did not reveal any indication about coercive collection of the amount of Rs. 60,000/-, as alleged. We did not find in the case record any copy of the NOC which was allegedly issued in favour of the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/OP. There was no evidence even in respect of moving the S I of school by the Appellant/OP Bank for attaching pension of the Respondent/Complainant for non-payment of dues, as alleged. It is difficult to believe that the Respondent/Complainant would yield to the pressure of any unjust claim of repayment of any part of a loan which was not due to him. We, therefore, are under impression that the Respondent/Complainant had rightly paid the claim for which he was defaulter and Appellant/OP made no mistake in realizing the overdues.

It revealed from the impugned judgment and order that the Ld. District Forum passed no direction towards refund of any amount which indicated that the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the allegation of unlawful realization of any amount from the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/OP. The order was peculiar in the sense that the Ld. District Forum had taken a harsh decision of ordering of the Appellant/OP for paying cost and compensation for prima-facie no fault on the part of the Appellant/OP.

The untenable decision led as to believe that the impugned judgment and order had suffered from material irregularity and accordingly, needed to be set aside.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Appeal be and the same stands allowed. Impugned judgment and order stands set aside and consequently, the complaint petition also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.