JUDGEMENT

          Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant Tilotama Parida has filed this case u/s 12 of the CP Act1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for providing him a wrong demand notice and praying therein for issue of appropriate order against the Opposite Parties after adjudication of the case.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant No. 1 has availed a housing loan for Rs. 30,000/- in the year 1999-2000 which was to be repaid in 25 installments of Rs. 12,00/- per month commencing from the financial year 2000-2001. The rate of interest is 13% in case of regular payment and 14.5% in case of default. The complainant No. 2 repaid the loan from time to time. The complainant No. 1 received a letter from OP No. 3 on 08.05.2012 for payment of installment amount of Rs. 20,000/- and interest Rs. 29,490/-. The complainant No. 1 made a representation to square up interest from Rs. 29,490/- to Rs. 20,000/-. The complainants have deposited the entire principle amount of Rs. 20,000/- and interest of Rs. 20,000/- on 16.05.2012 and the amount has been accepted by the OPs without any protest. Again on 05.05.2016, the OP No. 3 issued a demand notice wherein a sum of Rs. 15,900/- was claimed as interest against principal amount of ZERO. After receiving the notice, one pleader notice was sent to OP No. 3 to revoke the demand notice. But, there was no response from him. Again on 09.01.2017, the same claim was repeated and the complainants being disgusted by the demand notice on a time-barred loan and were compelled to approach this Commission to get relief from the illegal act of the OPs. It is further pleaded that the OPs have intentionally and arbitrarily retained a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of his unutilized leave salary since 2012. Therefore, the complainant seeks the intervention of this Forum for issue of appropriate direction to the Opposite Parties.

2.           After receipt of notice, the OP No. 1 and 3 filed their written statement. OP Nos. 2 and 4 preferred not to appear.

3.           The OP No. 1 and 3 in their written statement stated that the complainant No. 1 has paid only Rs. 7,380/- during the year 2000-2001, Rs. 1000/- during 2001-2002, Rs. 5000/- during 2003-2004 and Rs. 40,000/- during 2012-2013. Since the complainants were defaulters, they have rightly issued demand notice. The complainant No. 1 has not deposited the entire principal money of Rs. 30,000/- and the OP No. 3 is not competent to waive any interest on the loan amount. The interest amount of Rs. 15,900/- has been calculated on the principal amount. The accumulated interest has been deducted first from the payment made by the complainant No. 1 and if any amount is found surplus, then it is to be deducted from the principal amount. After receipt of the legal notice, the complainant No. 1 did not appear being noticed by OP No. 3 but her husband appeared on her behalf. After hearing, it was made clear that there is no provision in law that the interest will not exceed the principal amount. There is no question of unfair trade practice or intention of harassment as the OP No. 1 and 3 are not traders. The complainant is liable to repay the rest of the loan amount and as the complainant No. 2 has not been issued with No Due Certificate from the Touzi Section, his amount has been withheld. Since no service is rendered by the OPs in lieu of any charge of fees, the case is not maintainable and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the complainant and OP No. 1 and 3. Therefore, they claim for dismissal of the case with costs.

4.           In the present case, the demand notice has been issued by the ADM to the complainant No. 1. Before coming to this Forum, the complainant should have exhausted the forum’s available under OPDR Act-1962. The complainant has not availed the appellate forum as provided u/s 60 sub-sec. 1 (c) of OPDR Act 1962 and hence the order.

O R D E R

          The complaint petition is disposed off with direction to the complainants to file their grievance before the Appellate Authority and the OP No. 3 is directed not to take any coresive action against the complainants during this interim period. The case is accordingly disposed off.