Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

            This  is  a complaint  U/s. 12 of  C.P.Act, 1986  filed by  the complainant  against the  opp.parties ,.claiming some reliefs.

2.       The case of the complainant is  that Late  Hemanta Ku.Jena is  his  father  to whom  the opp.parties  have disbursed Krushi Loan for  fishery and  poultry. The complainant was  the  guarantor  for  sanction  of the  loan  in favour of his  father. The opp.party No.1  after receiving  all the required  documents  such as  voter  identity card, valuation certificate  along with  property security  and  a recurring  deposit  started  processing  of the  loan  . He took  processing  fee, documentation charges and signatures of the   complainant on  certain forms and agreement  and  disbursed the loan amount of Rs. 6,00,000.00 on 28.03.2006 in favour  of  the father  of the complainant  bearing loan No. 052003720600008. Annexure- 1 is the   photo copy of  the   letter  issued by opp.party No.1 in favour of  the  father of the  complainant, asking for  submission of  required  documents. The  opp.parties  have  not  supplied the copy  of the loan agreement, loan sanction letter ,forms or  money receipts  charges for the  documents. The  opp.parties  have also not supplied the  copy of  documents to the  father of the  complainant , in which  they have recommended the  Govt. authority  for  sanction of  subsidy. The  father of the  complainant repaid  the loan till  February,2015 in which  month he  died  due to an road accident.  Due  to  death of  Hemanta  the father of  complainant  there  was no  further  repayment of   loan . Annexure- 2 is the   photo copy of  the   death certificate. Soon after  the  death  of  Hemanta  the complainant  being the  guarantor informed  opp.party No.1  regarding  the  death  of  Hemanta and  requested  him to  co-operate  to clear up  the  balance  loan  amount  by one  time  settlement. Inspite of repeated  approach  the  opp.parties  did not  co-operate the complainant  nor  supplied  any  documents to him . After  a lapse of two years  i.e on  11.09.2017  the  opp.party No.1 issued a  notice  in Form No. F-126 to the complainant . Soon after receipt  of the said  notice  the  complainant  appeared before the opp.party No.1  and  prayed  for  one time settlement. Annexure- 3 is the   photo copy of  the  Form No. F-126. After  several requests the opp.party No.1 in the  month of  November, 2017  informed the complainant  that  late Hemant has repaid an amount of Rs.2,44,666.00 and  the  opp.party No.2  has adjusted  Rs.89,000.00 from his  R.D account  . After receiving  such information  from  opp.party No.1  the  complainant being the  guarantor  again approached the opp.party No.1  for one time settlement but  he  refused. The  opp.party No.1 demanded the total loan amount along with  upto date interest  and  other illegal charges  and  threatened  to  sale  the  mortgaged  property , if it  is not paid. The action  taken by the opp.parties  against  the complainant is  illegal and  with  ulterior motive. Hence this  complaint.

3.       Inspite of  notice  issued to  both the opp.parties  through Regd. post with A.D on 17.01.2018 , the opp.parties  neither  filed  show cause  nor  participated in the  hearing. Only  at the time of  argument  the  complainant  appeared  and  argument  was  heard from him  on 07.06.2023  and   the  case is posted for  judgement.

4.       The  case is  disposed off basing on  the complaint petition and the  documents filed  by the  complainant. In  the  complaint petition  the  complainant  admitted that  his  father late Hemant Ku.Jena  has availed a Krushi loan  for   fishery & poultry  firm from opp.parties ,in which he was the  guarantor .It is also admitted by him that his father has repaid  the loan upto his  accidental death in the month of February 2015.Annexure-2  shows  that the  father of  complainant  dies  in a  road accident  on  28.02.2015. It is also admitted by the complainant  that  a  notice was issued to  him  by the  bank of the opp.parties  in Form No. F-126 . The  complainant has filed the  photo copy of the  said  letter .On  perusal of the  said letter it appears  that an amount  of  Rs.7,18,165.00  along with  interest was demanded  from him  by the opp.parties  , he being the  guarantor  for sanction of the loan  to his  father. So admittedly  a huge amount of  outstanding loan  is pending towards  loan  in  the name of his  father .He  being  the  guarantor  is  liable  to   pay  the  same. From  the materials on  record it is  crystal  clear that  there is  no deficiency in service  by the opp.parties. One time  settlement  is  a  prerogative of  the  financing  institution  i.e  the  bank of the opp.parties. The Commission  can not  compel  the opp.parties to  extend the benefit of  one time settlement.

5.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

            The case be and the same is dismissed on exparte against opp.parties.