The instant case was started on the basis of a petition under Section 12 of the Consumer protection act, 1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No.49 /17 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint is that the complainant/petitioner intended to purchase a tractor for the purpose of his cultivation. As he has not sufficient fund for purchasing the tractor in cash for this purpose the complainant contracted with the O.P.No.1 for taking financial loan.

After assurance of the O.P. No. 1 the complainant deposited all necessary papers and quotation to the O.P. bank and after verification the O.P. concern satisfied with the complainant and assured that bank authority agreed to give loan for purchasing the tractor.

The O.P. sanctioned loan to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant purchased a tractor by financial assistance of the O.P.

After taking loan the complainant paid loan amount regularly fixed by the O.P. concern but suddenly the tractor met with an accident and the complainant could not paid the loan amount and due to that reason the loan amount was stood to Rs. 393500/- in the year 2014. At this stage the complainant repaid the said outstanding loan amount by way of compromise and the complainant contracted with the O.P. and filed a compromise petition to settle the loan amount.

After receipt of the compromise letter the O.P asked the complainant that if the complainant deposited 10 % of the offering settlement amount the bank concern intend to settle the claim.

That on being such assurance by the Branch Manager, the complainant deposited Rs. 35000/- out of settlement amount of Rs. 350000/-.

From the petition it is revealed that after lapse of long period there was no communication made by the O.P. concern. Thereafter, the complainant contracted with the O.P. No. 1 to know the actual fate of the compromise settlement and the O.P.No.1 informed the complainant that the higher authority agreed to settle the loan amount and directed the complainant to deposit the balance amount within stipulated period mentioned in the compromise petition dated 14/4/2014.

On the basis of such verbal instruction as well as compromise petition the complainant paid Rs. 150000/- on 4/8/2015 out of remaining outstanding loan amount of Rs. 315000/- and thereafter, the complainant further deposited a sum of Rs. 165000/- on 7/10/2015.

That as per compromise petition the complainant deposited all outstanding loan amount of Rs. 350000/- and thereafter, the complainant demanded the N.O.C. in respect of the loan but the O. P .No. 1 declared that the loan has not been repaid and the outstanding dues approx stand was Rs. 95000/-.

As such the complainant has filed a petition for paying and direction upon the O.P. to issue the N.O.C. in respect of the loan amount was Rs. 35000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service of the O.Ps and Rs. 5000/- for litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by the O.P. by filling the W.V. denying all the material allegations as labeled against the O.P. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. The claim is barred by law of limitation and non joinder of un necessary parties. It is submitted that the complainant had suppressed the real facts and he has not come to the court within clean hand. Actually, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Bank. That on 14/102014 the complainant filed petition before the O.P. to the effect that the complainant desired to enter into a compromise with the O.P. to clear off his loan. O.P. readily accepted his proposal and O.P. stated to him that Rs. 350000/- was fixed as settlement amount and as per condition of One Time settlement, 10 %

Of Rs. 350000/- i.e. Rs. 35000/- was deposited by the complainant. On 14/10/2014 further as per terms of condition, the complainant shall pay an interest @ 10% (Simple) to be paid after 30 days on reducing balance.

It is true that the complainant paid Rs. 150000/- on 4/8/2015 and further the complainant deposited Rs. 165000/- on 7/10/2015.

That as per the policy of the Bank with regard to the compromise proposal is that in deserving cases where the borrowers to pay the settlement amounts in installments, a maximum time period of 12 months from the date of sanction be allowed. Payment of settlement amount in installments will attract interest @ 10% p.a. on reducing balance.

The further defence case is that at present the balancing amount was Rs. 236660/-and interest applicable on Rs. 350000/- (OTS amount) was not paid, so one time settlement was not fully finalized. At present his outstanding balance was Rs. 236660/- and discharged balance was Rs. 727317/- as on 6/2/2018. As the loan amount was not paid with interest within stipulated period i.e. one year from 14/10/2014 to 15/10/2015 as per terms of the O.P.s this is why the Bank Authority did not issue the NOC to the complainant. So considering such facts and circumstances the complainant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

During trial the complainant Habibur Rahaman was examined as P.W.1 and also cross examined in the form of questionnaires. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand Sri. Chandan Kumar was examined as O.P.W.1 and he was also cross examined and no other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. During trial both party filed some documents which was kept in the record.

Now the point for determination whether the complainant is entitle to get any relief as prayed for.

                             DECISION WITH REASONS

On perusal of the record it is found that the complainant took a loan of Rs. 393500/- and the matter was settled between the parties that is Complainant (Habibur Rahaman) and Central Bank of India by way of OTS at Rs. 350000/- out of which 10 % equivalent to the settlement amount of Rs. 35000/- was paid on 14/10/2014 that is on the date of settlement and the rest amount was Rs. 315000/- will be deposited within one year with interest @ 10 % (simple) to be paid after 30 days on reducing balance. On perusal of the record it is found that the complainant  paid  Rs. 150000/- on 4/8/2015 and Rs. 165000/- on 7/10/2015 that is the total OTS has been cleared up within one year from the date of settlement. But the main problem was cropped up due to non payment of interest as per OTS proposal that is 10 % (simple) interest to be paid after 30 days. According to the OTS settlement the complainant did not pay the interest amount. On perusal of the record it is found that on 7/8/2015 Rs. 236660/- was the book dues that is outstanding balance of the loan account. On perusal of the record it is revealed that the complainant failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement due to his financial crisis as a result of which he did not pay the interest amount.  Moreover, it is also found that it is an agricultural loan though in the sanction order the Bank Authority did not mention it clearly.

 On perusal of the sanction order it is found in repayment clause it is mentioned that “loan will be repaid within 9 years in 18 Half Yearly installments”. As per general norms in the case of agricultural loan there is a provision for half yearly repayment of loan extending period 7 to 9 years but in the case of commercial loan i.e. Transport Loan, MSME etc. the repayment schedule will be monthly installments, but in the instant case it is found that the mode of repayment of loan was half yearly. So, definitely it was an agricultural loan. Moreover, at present the Bank Authority is claiming Rs. 727317/- on 6/2/2018 which is too much excessive upon the complainant and found no reason against such claim.  It is a fact that the complainant did not pay the interest amount so one time settlement was not fully finalized. So, the Bank Authority did not issue the NOC. But the Bank authority has also a social liability as and when one N.P.A.  A/c is cleared up through OTS. So the bank authority is requested to look in to the matter. The Forum is an opinion that a person who paid the amount as per settlement within stipulated period cannot be punished for imposing the loan amount of the tune of Rs. 727317/- for nonpayment of interest portion only on reducing balance of settled amount. Hence this Forum directs the Bank Authority to consider the matter. If the matter is not settled between the parties then the complainant may appeal to the forum.

C.F. paid is correct,

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the instant case being No. CC- 49/17 is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Bank Manager of Central Bank of India, Kahata Branch, P.O.-Chakulia, P.S. - Chakulia, Dist. - Utar Dinajpur for information and take necessary action.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.