Heard learned counsel for  both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filedu/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      After going through the pleadings  of both the parties,  it appears that the complainant has filed the case on the ground that he has availed the personal  loan for Rs.1.00 lacs from the OP with condition to pay back same in 72 EMIs. After recovery of 22 EMIs, OP issued a letter to the complainant to pay the regular instalments. The complainant objected such letter dated 12.12.2008 but it was in vain. Thereafter, he filed the complaint case.

4.      OP filed  his written version stating that the complainant was supposed to pay floating interest but the complainant has paid interest on the fixed rate of interest. It is also the case of the OP that the matter has been settled under the OTS Scheme. But the complainant again filed the case. So, they submitted to dismiss the complaint by allowing the appeal.

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

In the result, the complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OPs. The OP bank is directed to credit a sum of Rs.25,612/- in the SB Account bearing No.10861766902 within one month from the date of this order failing which the OP bank has to pay @9% interest till the amount is credited kin the SB Account of complainant.. The OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. In case the OP fails to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the  OP Bank u/s 25 & 27 of the CP Act, 1986.”

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the loan amount has already been paid and the account has been closed. However, there is no surplus money to be refunded to the opposite party. N.O.C has not been issued but about to be issued. Therefore, he submitted that since the loan amount has already been paid,  the question of  raising further claim should not have been entertained by the learned District Forum. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.        Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the loan amount has been paid but on calculation, the complainant has paid excess amount of Rs. 17,606/-  and the same should be refunded by the appellant. Morever, he submitted that N.O.C. has not been issued. Therefore, he supports the impugned order.

8.       We have considered the submissions,  perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.     It appears that the respondent has proved the deficiency on the part of the opposite  parties inasmuch as  when the loan amount has already been paid, there is no reason to hold the NOC. Therefore, we are of the view that the opposite party has got deficiency in service on his part. Besides, the complainant claimed that excess amount has been paid by him and the same has been suppressed by the opposite party in his evidence. Therefore, the complainant should be refunded with Rs. 17,606/- by the opposite party to the complainant within a period of 45 days failing which it will carry 9% interest P.A. from the date of impugned order from the date of payment. Further, we are of the view that NOC should be issued immediately within this period. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of. Rest of the amount of compensation and cost in impugned order would remain as such. 

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.