1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is having an SB a/c with OP No.2 and hence availed a “Used Car Loan” from OP.1 who financed Rs.1, 73,493/- vide loan a/c No.21415633 on 16.5.2012 in favour of the complainant to be recovered in 48 EMIs @ Rs.5303/- commencing from 07.6.2012.  It is submitted that the complainant was regularly paying EMIs through PDCs but the OP without depositing the cheques in the bank for collection, demands cash and collects OD and cheque bounce charges without showing any evidence.  It is further submitted that the OP.1 vide its letter dt.25.1.2015 demanded Rs.57, 352/- towards foreclosure of loan a/c and set hold Rs.1, 34,651/- from the SB a/c of the complainant with OP.2 arbitrarily for which the complainant could not withdraw money to meet his medical expenses and as such the complainant sustained mental agony and financial loss.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to free hold the amount of Rs.1, 34,651/- of the complainant with OP No.2 with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.2.2015 and not to charge interest @ 20.25% p.a. on the loan amount, not to foreclose the loan account and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about loan of Rs.1, 73,493/- taken by the complainant for purchase of a used Car with EMI of Rs.5303/- starting from 07.6.2012 to 07.5.2016.  With some preliminary objections, the Ops contended that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in paying loan dues from 08.5.2013 which is evident from the statement of accounts and hence they issued letter dt.23.1.2015 to the complainant to foreclose the loan account by giving Rs.1, 34,651/-.  It was also intimated to the complainant that in terms of agreement the bank marked “Hold Fund” against the HDFC accounts of the complainant with OP.2 and he was asked to pay the amount within 7 days and as the complainant did not respond to that letter, the bank debited an amount of Rs.1, 34,561/- on 20.2.2015 which action cannot be terms as deficiency in service.  Regarding rate of interest on the loan amount, the Ops contended that the complainant has agreed to pay such interest through loan agreement at the time of availing loan and it is false to say that the complainant has met the OP Bank and discussed anything.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the complainant through his A/R and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case availing of used car loan of Rs.1, 73,493/- by the complainant vide Loan A/c. No.21415633 dt.16.5.2012 from OP.1 with EMIs @ Rs.5303/- starting from 07.6.2012 till 07.5.2016 and the SB A/c of the complainant with OP No.2 at Jeypore are all admitted facts.  The case of the complainant is that he was paying the loan dues regularly through PDCs but without depositing the cheques in the bank, the OP demands cash from the complainant and on the plea of cheque bounce, the OP is in habit of collecting cheque bounce charges without showing any evidence.  In reply the Ops submitted that the complainant is a chronic defaulter of paying loan dues from 08.5.2013 and after bounce of cheques the OP bank gives calls and reminders to the complainant to make payment. We have gone through the statement of accounts of loan filed by the parties.  It is seen that some cheques have been bounced and complainant has paid the EMIs in cash.  Generally cheque bounces for not sufficient balance in the credit and in this case the complainant has not stated that he had sufficient balance to clear the cheque but the Ops had not produced the cheque for clearance.  No such evidence is also available on record.

5.                     From the copy of letter dt.23.1.2015 of the OP to the complainant which is available on record, it is seen that the OP bank has reminded the complainant to foreclose the loan accounts for Rs.1, 34,651/- within 7 days failing which the same will be recovered through direct debit from the accounts of the complainant.  The complainant also admits about receipt of that letter but failed to repay the loan dues and hence the OP exercising banker’s lien and right to set off has set held the account.

6.                     Further the complainant stated about interest charged on the loan amount.  This issue cannot be adjudicated by this Forum or re-fix the rate of interest as it has already agreed by both the parties through agreement while sanctioning the loan.

7.                     The complainant has availed loan from the OP after execution of loan agreement.  Both the parties should act within the terms of agreement.  Time is the essence of the contract and installments are to be paid on or before the date it becomes due every month and on default or delay in payment after the due date it certainly carries penal interest and charges.  Due to the irregular action of the complainant the loan dues grew up and the OP acted as per terms of agreement.

8.                     In the above circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service or any unfair activities on the part of the Ops.  Hence being a meritless case, it needs to be dismissed.  In the result we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)