FINAL ORDER

A. K. BHATTACHARYYA, PRESIDENT

The complainant’s case, in short, may be briefly stated as follows:

The complainant took home loan on 24.01.2005 from the OP no. 1 against loan account no. 11424682297 for the amount of Rs. 4,00,000. for tenure of 15 years.  The EMI fixed for the loan was initially Rs. 3,280. per month, then it was enhanced at the rate off Rs. 3,400. per month from 7^th March 2007 and thereafter it became Rs. 5,000. per month from 7^th December 2008.  After that it was finally settled on 05.08.2012.  He was informed by the  OP that his rate of interest was floating.  He then asked the OP to make it static, but the opposite party’s official showed an indifferent attitude.  The complainant then paid Rs. 6,78,967. in total towards repayment of the loan, out of which Rs. 1,00,000. was more than the actual amount of the interest.  The OP parties did not take any step for solution of the disputed interest taken from the complainant in despite of rigorous follow up, hence the instant case for relief, as sought for.

The OP parties did not contest the case in spite of service of notices upon them for which this case was taken up for ex.parte hearing and heard the complainant and also his ld. advocate in full on 13.03.2014.

Points for determination

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the op. parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for?

Decisions with reasons

Point nos. 1& 2:

Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion.

We have gone through the petition of complaint and the photocopies of documents and W.N.A filed on record by the complainant thoroughly (Annexure I, II and III).  It is to be noted that the complainant has not furnished any material to show as to whether (a) the rate of interest for the loan was static or floating (b) as to how many installments were fixed for repayment of loan along with interest and its dates.  No copy of loan agreement is also forthcoming from the side of the complainant.

The complainant has filed photocopies of documents as annexure – I, II and III mentioned in paragraph no. 2, 3 and 4 of the complaint regarding loan, EMI and payments (statements).

The complainant stated in paragraph 4 of the complaint that he paid Rs. 6,78,967. in total towards repayment of loan along with interest and of which Rs. 1,00,000. was taken by the OP parties as excess  amount of interest. 

On careful perusal of the annexures I, II and III as mentioned above we find that the aforesaid photocopies documents (Annexure I, II and III) indicate that the complainant made repayment towards loan and interest to the tune of Rs. 5,83,687. up to 05.08.2012 (Home loan closure), but not Rs. 6,78,967. as mentioned in para 4 of the complaint.

From the said annexures – I, II and III it appears that the complainant was irregular in payment of loan.    Moreover, in the annexures I, II and III (bank documents) it has been clearly mentioned about the dates of repayment, interest with penalty supported by reason.

In our considered view, therefore, the complainant has failed to establish that the op parties took Rs. 1,00,000. as excess amount of interest as alleged from him.  Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP parties.  That being the position, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for and the instant case is liable to be dismissed. 

The above two points are, thus, disposed of.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on ex.parte against the OP. parties without any cost.