DATE OF DISPOSAL: 06.07.2023

SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission. 

            2.The complainant was granted a loan previously in loan account No. 31698593313 for Rs.83,000/- from the SBI, Medical Campus Branch, Berhampur which was paid by part by part at different times, but the complainant was asked to remain present in the court of permanent and continuous Lok Adalat on 14.12.2019 for an outstanding amount for Rs.79,160/-. The complainant had attended the said court on the date where in it was settled for Rs.25,000/-. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 14.12.2019, Rs.8,000/-on 27.01.2020 and Rs.7,000/- on 22.01.2021 respectively. The complainants on 28.12.2020 approached the medical campus Branch of SBI Berhampur for payment and clear the loan. The concerned B.M; had advised complainant to meet the O.P. The OP in a most arrogant conduct thwarted the complainant and denied to clear the loan or provide the clearance certificate. The complainant was mentally tortured and emotionally breaks down due to the unconstitutional behavior and service of the O.P.   The O.P. did not round off the loan nor provided the clearance certificate nor released of the attached account No. 31209800943. The O.P. again demanded Adhar card, voter card and other documents and asked to come again with the Blank Annexure-II with signature on 22.2.2021 and 6.2.2021 provided by the O.P. and asked to come later. So these amounts to deficiency of service in the context of the public servant like the O.P. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to deliver the loan clearance certificate immediately, Lift the attachment in Account No. 31209800943 with up to date clear figure with right to withdraw the amount, and compensation amount of Rs.17,000/- in the best interest of justice.

                3. The O.P. filed written version through his advocate.  It is accepted that the complainant was granted a loan vide loan account No. 31698593313 for Rs.83,000/- and also the complainant paid part amount in different times in reduction of his loan amount and the remaining amount of outstanding loan amount including interest came to Rs.79,160/- which was asked in the court of permanent lok Adalat held on 14.12.2019 . It is true that the complainant got present at Lok Adalat on 14.12.2019 and there is outstanding amount of Rs.79,160/- is settled to Rs.25,000/- against which the complainant paid sum of Rs.10,000/- on that date and rest amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid in two installments. It may be true that the complainant approached on 28.12.2020 at the medical campus Branch of SBI, Berhampur for clear of loan and the complainant was advised to contact the O.P. as such. But it is totally denied that the complainant has never contacted the O.P. for such purpose and also this complainant disclosed itself is a defect one that there are two complainants in this proceeding but throughout the word the complainant is mentioned. It should be clear and apparent that who the complainant is?  The contents made in Para 5, 6 and 7 are totally wrong and hereby denied for want of knowledge. It is denied that the respondent in a most arrogant conduct thwarted the complainant and denied to clear the loan or provide the clearance certificate. It is also denied that the complainant was mentally tortured and emotionally break down due to the unconstitutional behavior and service of the respondent, the respondent did not round off the loan nor provided the clearance certificate nor the release of the attached the account No. 31209800943. It is denied that the respondent demanded the complainant for Aadhar card, voter card and other documents. These allegations are nothing but speculation for the purpose of this case. The petition does not clear that who is the complainant. The O.P. is a well disciplined mannerism person and always the respondent has been discharging his duty in peaceful manner and has never made any type of harassment to anyone including the complainant as alleged as may be. The O.P. never made or caused any type of mental agony to any customer. The complainant as alleged in this case disclosed themselves that they are playing fraud with the O.P. with an ill intention nothing to demand illegal money knowing that the O.P. is a service man working in State Bank of India which is a financial institution and the complainant are doing mischief and filed this false and foist proceeding in view to grab money. If the complainants cleared the loan settled amount, the bank authorities will provide the clearance certificate after following of due procedure and the complainants are required to extend their cooperation for such purpose and the loanee is entitled to get clearance certificate if they cleared the loan amount, so the allegations made by the complainants are totally false and baseless. All the allegations caused due to their own negligence. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case with cost in the best interest of natural justice.

       4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocates for the complainant is present. We heard argument from both the parties at length, the OP admitted that, the complainants cleared their loan amounts and perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and materials placed on the case record. It appears that, the complainants have not filed any corroborative documents related to the attachment of the account no.:31209800943. In absence of primary information related to an account number, the Court cannot pass order on it. Though there is no such law enacted regarding procedure on issuance of loan clearance certificate to the borrower however the Commission feels that normally how the banks or financial institutions playing their role in the present society in regards to the issue of the Loan Clearance Certificate or NOC to its borrower. Further in the present era, the loan clearance certificate is a legal document having important role in financial and personal life of borrowers adversely. It cannot be ruled out that, the same borrower cannot be affected in future from the same bank. So it is most important to issue clearance certificate of loan immediately after payment of all the dues by the borrower either ways i.e., the lender should issue the said certificate by dispatching to the borrower in the registered address or the borrower should collect it from the lender. In the pecuniary facts and circumstances we allow the case partly.

            In the result we direct the O.P. to issue the loan clearance certificate to the complainants together with compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- within 30 days from receipt of this order.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 06.07.2023