JUDGMENT

Shri. A.K.Patra, President

1. This Complaint is filed against the Op inter alia alleging negligence & deficiency in service for false assurance of sanction of additional loan to the complainant for completing of the   construction of a residential building.
2. Complainant  seeks for an order directing the O.P/Bank not to harasses the complainant and to exempt total outstanding loan amount of Rs. 5,93,455/- & overdue amount of Rs.25,123/- and further pray for any other order as the Commission may  think proper to compensate the complainant in the interest of consumer law .
3. Complainant is remaining absent on the date fixed for hearing. However, in view of Section 38(3)(c)  of C.P.Act,2019 case record taken up today to decide the complaint on merit after  hearing of the  learned counsel for the complainant & OP/bank present.
4. The  facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant had applied  for house lone to the Opp.Party No.1 Bank  by furnishing required documents and the OP Bank had sanctioned  loan amount of Rs.4,70,000/-  in favour of the complainant.  The complainant had filed  copy of estimate of the proposed house, scheduled to be constructed over Plot No.1143, Khata No.290 ,Mouza: Kamthana, Ps Bhawanipatna for an amount of Rs.17,95,000/-  prepared by Asst. Engineer, R & B, Bhawanipatna on dt.12.11.2017 but the OP Bank had  sanctioned Rs.4,70,000/-  and assured to sanction balance amount of estimated cost  of the proposed house  submitted by the complainant. As per the assurance of the OP Bank the complainant started construction of house building at proposed place and construction has already reached up to slab level where upon  all sanctioned amount were exhausted. When the complainant approached to the OP Bank regarding further sanction of loan amount as per estimate for completion of his residential house, the OP tried to linger the matter and thus construction work was disrupted.
5.  It is alleged that, as per the assurance of the OP Bank, the complainant started construction of house but as the OP Bank did not sanction further amount of loan as per said estimate, the complainant could not able to complete the construction is house and the complainant has been cheated by the OP Bank caused a lot of mentally harassed to the complainant.
6. It is further alleged that, the complainant has made repayment of loan up to 30.04.2021 in different installment but at last the complainant became mentally disturbed due to willful negligence of the OP Bank, thus the OP bank is liable to compensation towards loss sustained by the complainant.  On dt.09.11.2022 the OP Bank has issued a letter demanding  payment of overdue amount of  Rs.25,123/-  along with outstanding amount of Rs.5,93,455/-  which is completely illegal & one sided  decision of the Bank without looking to the interest of the complainant.  It is contended that, the complainant is entitled for  sanction of further loan amount by  the OP Bank as per the estimate to complete the construction work of his house and to  rescheduled the installment  after sanction of  further loan to the complainant and he is entitled to get exempt from payment of total outstanding amount of Rs.5,93,455/- & overdue amount of Rs.25,123/- to the OP/Bank  as the OP Bank has willfully neglected to sanction further loan  and harassed the complainant. Hence, finding no other option the complainant took shelter of this Commission by  way of this  complaint
7. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed the following documents along with his complaint:-  (i) photo copy of his Aadhar card vide No.9006 2090 2424, (ii) photo copy hid Voter ID Card, (ii) photo Copy of Bank Statement  vide A/c No.3911956595 along with the complaint petition .
8. Being notice, the OP Bank appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri P.K.Sahany and   filed their written version but as the written version was not filed within the stipulated period of time as prescribed under the C.P.Act, the written version of op/Bank was not accepted by this Commission in view the order of Honorable Suprem Court of Indis passed in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vrs Hilli Multi Purposes Cold Storage Ltd. . However, the OP Bank was allowed to participate in the further proceeding of the case.
9.  During hearing of this case, learned counsel for the OP/Bank submitted that, the Bank has not assured the complainant to sanction further home loan at any point of time. As per his application & eligibility Bank has sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,70,000/- only for construction of house   and further submitted that, it is not mandatory on the part of the Bank to sanction all the project cost. It is further submits that, the Bank sent a follow up notice on dt.09.11.2022 informing the complainant to repay the overdue amount of Rs.25,123/-  and as per the request of the complainant  Bank has allowed moratorium period of 15 months from 01.06.2021 to 31.08.2022. However, the complainant has not repaid any amount during the above mentioned period and now when the responsibility of repayment of EMIs is there on the complainant he is trying to escape from the responsibility and he has approached this Commission with a false allegation against the OP/Bank .  It is further submitted that, there is no cause of action for this complaint and it is not maintainable in the eye of law rather liable to be dismissed with cost.
10. Heard. Perused the material available on record. Complainant has availed a loan from the OP/Bank is not disputed. The complainant has alleged negligence & deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Bank for false assurance of sanction of additional loan to the complainant for completing   construction of a residential building.
11. Admittedly, the OP/Bank has sanction a loan of Rs.4,70,000/- vide TL-3911956595   and disbursed to the complainant for construction of  a building but the complainant is in default to repay the loan regularly for which notice dt. 09.11.2022 is served to the complainant /borrower by the op/bank demanding repayment of overdue loan amount and to regularize the loan .It is also remain undisputed that, during pendency of this complaint a  notice vide No. RO/SAM/RECV(s) /2023-24 dt.04.05.2023 is issued intending to take possession of  the secured property of the complainant &   sold it on auction for  releasing  the loan due against the complainant for which the complainant had sought for an interim relief accordingly, this Commission has issued an interim order dt.20.07.23 with a direction to the  OP/Bank not to take    force full possession of the secured assets /home stead  land of the complainant and further directed the complainant  to the complainant to regularized the  loan within three month of said interim order and since then the complainant did not turn up  to participate in the further hearing of this case.Nothing material available on the record to hold that the complainant has ever complied the said interim order dt. 20.07.2023 till date rather the learned counsel for the OP/Bank submits that, the complainant the complainant has avail sufficient time but  not yet deposit a single rupee to the OP/Bank in compliance of the order interne order dt.20.07.2023 which proved that, the complainant is not in clean hand .
12. No evidence on affidavit as prescribed in C.P. Act 2019 is adduced by the complainant to substantiate his claim.  
13. As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record ; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
14. Law is well settled that, complainant is to prove deficiency in service as alleged against the Ops but here the complainant failed to prove any negligence & deficiency of service on the part of the Ops as alleged in his complainant petition. Rather it is proved on admission that, the complainant is defaulted in repayment of loan availed from the Op/Bank. We found much weight on the submission of the learned counsel for the Op that, the complainant is not in clean hand deliberately avoiding repayment of loan due against him even after  obtaining interim relief  from this Commission .
15.  Law is well settled that, Bank/Op is at liberty to sanction any loan based on eligibility & credibility of their customers. The borrower /complainant is duty bound to repay the loan received from the OP/Bank .We are of the opinion that, there is nothing illegal or deficient service on the part of the OP/Bank by serving of said demand notice dt.09.11.2022 to the complainant for repayment of overdue loan amount of  Rs.25,123/-  along with outstanding loan amount of Rs.5,93,455/- 
16. Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits. Hence, dismissed against the OPs on contest. However, no order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

      Sd/-      

      President.

                  I   agree.

    Sd/-                            

Member.                                    

      Pronounced   in open Commission today on this   19^th day of October 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

      Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.