JUDGEMENT

Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

          Complainant Radhamohan Sethi has filed this case against the Opposite Party u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party for not providing the details of the loan account in spite of repeated approaches and claiming higher amount towards loan dues and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party to provide him with a statement of accounts, revise the accounts with easy payment and restraining the Opposite Party for forceful repossession of the vehicle and to pay cost and compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had availed one loan of Rs. 6,00000/- (Six lakhs) only from United Bank of India, Nuapada Branch which has merged with Punjab National Bank subsequently and has been re-named as Punjab National Bank, Nuapada. The complainant received a notice to pay a sum of Rs. 2,80,830.75p on 10.11.2021. After receipt of notice, he approached the Opposite Party to provide him with a statement of accounts. But the Opposite Parties did not provide him with the statement of accounts and simultaneously threatened to repossess the financed vehicle by use of criminal force for which he filed this case for the reliefs as discussed in preceding paragraph.
2. After receipt of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through his Advocate and filed written statements. In his written statement, Opposite Party stated that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 6,00000/- on 03.09.2011 repayable in 72 monthly installments with interest @ 12.90% (floating) per annum and penal interest @ 2% on overdue amount and the monthly installment was fixed at Rs. 12,013/-. The complainant was a regular defaulter and he did not adhere to the terms of repayment for which the matter was raised before DLSA, Nuapada for settlement in the National Lok Adalat. But, the petitioner avoided appearing in the Lok Adalat for settlement. In spite of repeated notices, he did not repay the loan amount for which it became non-performing assets. As the petitioner intentionally and grossly violated the terms and conditions of car loan and the agreement period is already over since 09.09.2019, the complainant is intentionally avoiding to repay the loan for which he prayed for a direction to the complainant to close the car loan by depositing the outstanding dues. 
3. During the course of hearing of the case, the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank appeared in person along with his Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and offered to settle the loan amount at an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-.  The complainant has submitted in writing that he is willing to settle the loan on OTS basis for Rs. 1, 50, 000/-. But, the OP Bank did not agree to go back from the offered amount of Rs. 2, 50, 000/- as a sum of Rs. 6,78,187.75p is outstanding against him as on 29.04.2023 and they have substantially reduced the loan amount in spite of huge loss to the bank.
4. During the course of hearing the OP agreed to settle the loan account on payment of Rs.2,20,000/-(Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand) only. The complainant agreed and paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-(One Lakh Ten Thousand) only to the OP in the Commission. The rest amount will be paid by the complainant within 60 days starting from 12.08.2023 and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is disposed of with a direction to the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- (One Lakh Ten Thousand) only to the OP Bank within a period of 60 days failing which the OP Bank is at liberty to take recourse of law for recovery of the loan dues in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own cost.