Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant  has availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of diary firm in the year 2005 from OP-Bank. Complainant alleged inter-alia that he could not deposit the loan amount with the OP and as such it became dormant. Complainant  alleged that the OP-Bank has given a proposal to the complainant in the year 2008 for settling same under  OTS and complainant agreed to this proposal to deposit the outstanding loan amount in three instalments. According to OTS Scheme the complainant deposited the money but on 31.08.2016 a demand notice of Rs.5,02,962/- issued and he has received the same with  interest @ 13.75 % per annum and directed to deposit same within 15 days. Thereafter the OP was asked to return the securities and the NOC. As same was not availed, the complaint case was filed.

4.                  Per contra, the OP denied the allegation and submitted that the letter under which OTS proposal  filed is not that document  but it is a overdue demand letter issued by the OP. Further the OP-Bank initiated notice to complainant to deposit 75 % of the total overdue in three instalments under the debt waiver and debt relief scheme  of farmer  2008. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP

5.                   After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                  “   In view of the aforesaid findings we allowed the complaint petition and directed the OP-Bank not to claim any further amount since the complainant has already paid the settled amount as per their OTS proposal and the OP-Bank is directed to issue No Dues Certificate and return the securities documents and FD amount to the complainant within 30 days. No cost. “

6.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by referring the letter for payment of overdue amount but the learned District Forum took it as OTS Scheme. Since, the complainant is not coming under debt waival scheme he is not entitled to any relief. Learned District Forum ought to have applied  judicial mind to such fact. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                   Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant has already paid the amount as proposed by the OP. He submitted that learned District Forum has elaborately discussed the matter and then allowed it. Therefore, he submitted to  support the impugned order of the learned District Forum.

8.             Considered the submission of both the parties,    perused the DFR and  impugned order.

9.                  It is admitted fact that the complainant  is a loanee under the OP. It is not in dispute that  the complainant has availed loan. During course of argument the question was asked whether the documents relied on by both the parties is a OTS proposal or agreement to pay overdue  charges. The OP-Bank has failed to produce any document. On the otherhand Annexure-5  produced by the complainant clearly shows that the complainant has proposed for OTS Scheme and in fact  it was allowed.  No agreement is filed to claim the overdue demand. The debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008 allowed to “other farmers” who have  more land of 2 acres and also eligible for OTS. After payment  accepted in 2009 vide document         filed again  in 2016 raising for the same as  letter overdue payment is deficiency of service of the OP. Learned District Forum has amply went through the material on record and there is  nothing to interfere with the impugned order. This Commission is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

                    Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.    

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.