The Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant wants to file reply to the W/V filed by the OP.

Serious objection is raised. There is no provision of Law by dint of which the complainant may be allowed to file reply to the W/V. So prayer is refused . Let us stands to the MA/38/2020.

After hearing the Ld. Advocates on both sides for and against the prayer for injunction and also after adverting to the judgements of Hon’ble SCDRC passed in CC/163/2014 by Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh on 20.02.2015 we find that the aforesaid two judgements relied upon by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant are not very much relevant and aside from that, this Commission is not supposed to abide by the decision passed by Ld. State Commission, Chandigarh.

It appears that the complainant has wanted this Commission to restrain the bank from demanding rest EMI (equal monthly installments) on the ground that excess payment has already been made. But statement of account showing up excess payment is not filed.

The letter dated 14.09.2020 addressed to the Manager of State Bank of India to which reference has been made by the Ld. Advocate also does not disclose that excess payment has been collected from the borrower/complainant.

Facts remain that housing loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was taken by the complainant on 30.08.2008 and Rs. 6,58,000/- has been collected from the borrower by the bank in EMI (equal monthly installments).

It has not been shown to this Commission that nothing remains unpaid from the borrower with reference to the housing building loan.

Therefore, the prayer for an order restraining the bank from collecting the next EMI cannot be upheld. MA/38/2020 therefore calls for no action and hence it is rejected.

Fix 09.02.2022 for filing evidence by the complainant on affidavit.

Let plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT