The Complainant is working under M/s. Birla Tyres situated at Balasore vis-a-vis is the S.B Account holder with O.P No.1 in as much as has fiscal transaction with the O.P No.1. Therefore, the Complainant is a Consumer within the meaning & definition of Section-2 (d) of the special act like Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Petitioner’s case, in brief, is that he had availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs) only during the year 2004 at the rate of 8.25 % interest per annum from O.P No.1 for the purpose of construction and repair the damaged house caused due to Super Cyclone in 1999. An agreement was executed between O.P No.3 and O.P No.1, where O.P No.3 would have to send wages of the Petitioner to O.P No.1 till the repayment period of the said loan i.e. for 120 months. Another agreement was also executed by the Complainant before sanction of the loan is that rate of interest would be changed from time to time and O.P No.1 shall be deemed to have noticed of changes, whenever the changes arise to the Complainant or to the O.P No.3. The Complainant is also obliged and agreed to abide by the rule and regulation of the said agreement. The Complainant read, understood and signed in the agreement paper to repay the prevailing interest and the changing rate of interest within the stipulated period of 120 installments or i.e. 10 years. The said repayment of loan was made by deducting the loan installments from the savings account of the Complainant i.e. S.B A/c No.10541695184. But, the O.P No.1 has been deducting more installments from S.B A/c of the Complainant beyond 10 years without any intimation to the Complainant or to O.P No.3 in this effect. Such type of activities of O.P No.1 is illegal and unjustified in the eyes of Law. Hike of interest is not intimated to O.P No.3, if intimated earlier, the O.P No.3 would have been remitted to O.P No.1 the hike amount of loan installments in quarterly, half yearly or yearly rest to be kept in separate column for recovery. As a result, the loan amount of the Complainant has increased to huge amount, which is the gross negligence of services and improper communication by O.P No.1.
The Complainant’s prayer for directing the O.P No.1 for refund of loan installments already debited from S.B A/c No. beyond 120 months and to stop future loan installments deductions from the said S.B A/c, along with compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation also.
Written version filed by the O.P No.3 through their Advocates, where they have challenged about maintainability, proceeding, tenability, necessary/ proper Party & more over a Consumer.
But true state of affair is that the Complainant (Workmen of O.P No.3) directly approached to O.P No.1 & 2 to avail a flood loan, where they agreed to sanction subject to execution of the loan agreement & other documents. As per terms & conditions of the loan agreement, the Complainant approached the O.P No.3 to remit his monthly salary to the said Bank till his loan is liquidated. The Complainant also submitted an undertaking/declaration in writing to O.P No.3 to this effect. The undertaking/declaration submitted by the Complainant, the O.P No.3 sent their consent to the Bank. The O.P No.3 has also given consent to the Bank that they will not remit monthly salary of the Complainant to any other Bank till gets a “No objection Certificate” from the Bank i.e. O.P No.1 & 2. On the basis of such commitment, the O.P No.1 & 2 sanctioned flood loan to the Complainant, besides this, the O.P No.3 has no personal knowledge about the mode of realization of loan dues by O.P No.1 & 2. The present dispute raised by the Complainant is against O.P No.1 & 2 only. As such the O.P No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant & this case bears no merit, hence the same is liable to be dismissed against O.P No.3.
Ld. Counsel for O.P No.1 & 2 has remained absent at the time of hearing. On repeated calls, neither they have remained present nor filed W/V. So the O.P No.1 & 2 set ex-parte on 25.08.2015.
Complainant went un-represented and also absent on repeated calls. Heard the case from the Ld. Counsel for O.P No.3. Upon perusal of materials available on record, what we noticed is that the Complainant, who availed a loan from O.Ps-Bank for house repair and damage caused to his house due to Super Cyclone during 1999 and being a limited income worker in O.P No.3, unable to repay the loan amount of O.Ps-Bank, if any. Hence, the Order:-
O R D E R
Under such circumstances, the O.P-Bank shall find out ways and means from any provisions made available with them to extend towards closure of the loan account of the Complainant. With this directions to O.P No.1 & 2, the Complainant is disposed off.
Pronounced in the Open Forum this day the 4th day of August, 2016 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
