In the course of hearing the arguments of the complainant who is in person and counsel representing the Op, the complainant submitted that he had borrowed a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the Op agreeing to repay the same in 30 EMI’s of Rs.1,584/- each.   That he has paid all the 30 EMI’s and not due any amount but still the Op is claiming another 6 installments and submitted that he is not at all liable and therefore, has prayed for relief to restrain the Op from claiming any amount.

        Whereas the counsel representing the Op invited our attention to loan sanctioned, then ECS mandate and submitted that loan was sanctioned with interest @ 30% p.a which was repayable in 36 installments.   As evident from the documents the complainant is a party to those documents and therefore, there is no truth in the allegations of the complainant that he is only liable to pay 30 EMI’s not 36 EMI’s.   When we questioned the complainant in this regard about he being a party to these documents he submitted that his signatures were taken to the blank forms which are later on filled up.   Such stand cannot be accepted at this stage until the complainant proves such allegations.   We therefore on considering the entire documents, find that the complainant was a party to repay the loan in 36 installments and not 30 installments. When we made this fact clear to the complainant, he submitted that he is a poor employee, that he was in the belief that he was liable to pay 30 EMI’s, he has paid all 30 EMI’s promptly without any fault and thereafter stopped further payments but the Ops now will impose all the sundry charges and make him liable to pay more amount which he is not afford to and therefore submitted for some leniency.     At this stage, considering the appeal of the complainant, we told the counsel for the Op to consider whether the Op could receive only 6 EMI’s outstanding without charging any other extra charges for which, the learned counsel for Op after consulting his client fairly conceded to extend such concession and submitted for orders accordingly.  With the result, we pass the following order.

O R D E R

        Complaint though is liable to be dismissed but we would like to make the following observations. 

        OP shall only recover balance 6 EMI’s of Rs.1,584/- each from the complainant and they shall not charge any over due charges, interest and other miscellaneous charges.  

        Complainant has agreed to pay 3 EMI’s by the end of October 2010 and he shall pay the balance 3 installments before 07/12/2010.  

        In the event of complainant failing to pay the balance EMI’s as ordered above, Op is at liberty to charge interest on the outstanding EMI amount.

MEMBER                        MEMBER                    PRESIDENT