Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

2.      Learned counsel for the respondent is absent on call. It appears that learned counsel for the respondent is not appearing in the last  several dates.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellants pressed for hearing of the appeal on the materials available on record. Taking into consideration the nature of the case, the matter is taken up for disposal on merit.

4.      Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

5.      This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

6.    Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant alleged that he has incurred loan from the OP for development of his Audio Cassette business. But due to his illness, he could not pay the EMI regularly. It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that on being noticed by the OPs - Bank, the complainant requested OP No.1 to settle the amount under One Time Settlement Scheme. Complainant alleged that the matter was settled for payment of Rs.1,50,000/- in One Time Settlement Scheme and he has deposited the said amount and the OPs have made endorsement that account closed. In spite of account closed, the OPs did not return the documents. Thus, showing deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, complainant filed the complaint.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that OPs appeared through advocate but the advocate did not appear due to his personal problem and as such OPs were set ex parte. He further submitted that the complainant had suppressed the material fact to the extent that there is still outstanding of loan against the complaiant and but inadvertently endorsement was made that account closed. According to him, there is outstanding of Rs.1,23,514.69 in spite of payment of some instalments. Further, it is the case of the OPs that the story of settlement of the matter under One Time Settlement as stated by the complainant is a false one. As there is no full repayment of the loan amount, NOC could not be issued and the documents are lying with them. Due to sheer negligence of the advocate for the OPs, the OPs could not place all these facts before the learned District Forum.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum without following due procedure of law made the OPs ex parte and passed ex parte order. Unless the OPs are given a chance to file written version and participate in the hearing the truth will not come out. He submitted to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned District Forum to give opportunity to the appellants of being heard and disposed of the case on merit.

9.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    The onus lies on the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

11.    Complainant has filed documents but complaint is silent how much loan he has incurred from the OPs for his business. Apart from this, the statement of account filed shows that he has  incurred loan of Rs.8,30,515.69 and in fact, he has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.6.2015 and balance remained Rs.1,23,000.69 as debit amount. Then the documents show that there is a talk of compromise for payment of the balance amount but no document of One Time Settlement is found. However, the OP since did not file the written version and adduce evidence, it is not known whether there is complete repayment of loan so as to issue NOC. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that for the latches on the part of the advocate, the appellant should not be allowed to suffer. It also appears from the order sheet that the appellant has asked for time. Although time is allowed to file written version on 17.5.2016 but the appellant remained absent. There is reason to believe that for the latches on the part of the lawyer, the OP was set ex parte. Unless the complaint is disposed of on merit, real truth will not come out. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that reasonable opportunity be given to the OP to place all the facts for disposal of the case on merit.

12.    In view of above discussion, this Commission is of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside and opportunity of being heard should be extended to the OP to dispose of the case on merit. Therefore, the impugned ex parte order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum, Balasore for affording opportunity to the OP to file written version and give reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, if any, and dispose of the complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. While direction is given as such, it is felt necessary to compensate the complainant for rehearing of the case. Therefore, the aforesaid order be carried out subject to payment of Rs.5,000/-  by the appellant/OP to the complainant before the District Forum.  Therefore, the learned District Forum is further directed to ensure that the complainant has received Rs.5,000/- from the OP before allowing him to file written version and proceed further in the trial. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 01.2.2021 to receive further instruction from it.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

          The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with internet accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

DFR be sent back forthwith.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.