Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant Braja Mohan Hota has filed this case U/s. 35 of CP Act., 2019 against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs for providing him a demand notice even after clearing all his loan dues and praying therein for direction to the OPs not to take any coercive action against the complainant and not to proceed in certificate case no. 02 of 2020 pending before Tahasildar, Sinapali and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and harassment and litigation.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a Govt. servant who had avail a house building loan of Rs. 30,000/- with a interest @ 13% per annum on 01.03.1999 repayable in 25 equal installments under Middle Income Group Housing Scheme. The complainant was repaying his loan dues from time to time but the OP NO. 2 did not issue any acknowledgement and arbitrarily initiated a certificate case without going for arbitration as agreed in para 17 of the loan agreement. The complainant first received the notice in Certificate Case No. 2 of 2003 for repayment of the principal amount Rs.16,344/- and interest of Rs.851.50ps and cost of realization of Rs. 23/- the total of which 17218.50 ps. The second notice was received by the complainant on 26.12.2003 in which he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 18521/- subsequently the complainant received the notice for warrant of attachment on moveable property on 12.01.2004 for realization of amount 16344/- + interest of Rs. 2384/- + realization cost Rs. 25/- which comes to Rs. 18753/-. The complainant was served with another notice on 08.01.2007 in which a sum of Rs. 24360.50ps was claimed by the certificate officer. On 20.03.2007 another notice was received by him and he had appeared before the OP No. 2 i.e. Tahasildar, Sinapali and prayed for time to repay the loan dues with interest with 2 installment and it was allowed by the authority accordingly he repay the amount in 2 installment of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 14,873/-on dated 27.01.2007 & 25.03.2007 towards full and final settlement of the loan. Even after clearing of the total loan by the complainant the Tahasildar, Sinapali illegally and arbitrarily initiated a certificate case no. 02 of 2020 and after receipt of notice he represented his case with all relevant documents but the OP No. 1 asked the complainant to pay Rs. 1,08,210/- ignoring the representation given to him. As the OP No. 2 insisted for payment of the certificate amount finding no other alternatives he filed this case for the reliefs as discussed above.
2.           After receipt of notice the OP No. 2 appeared through Govt. pleader and file his written version. In his written version the OP No. 2 stated that as per agreement the complainant had to repay the loan amount of Rs. 30000/- in 25 equal installments of Rs. 1200 per year. Even though he had availed the loan he did not repay the installment for continuously 3 years after the lapse of the grace period of 1 year for which certificate case no. 2 of 2003 was initiated demanding Rs. 3600/- for three installment and Rs. 12744/- for three years interest which comes to 16344/-. The amount of Rs. 24873/- is outcome of Rs. 16344/- as the complainant did not pay the loan amount of Rs. 16344/- till 20.03.2007, the complainant had to repay Rs. 24873/- + 1,08,235/- out of which the complainant paid 24,873/- in 2 installment. Till 11.03.2021 , Rs.1,08,235/- is still due for repayment against loan by the complainant which has not paid till date even after the written instruction Add. Dist. Magistrate, Nuapada vide letter No. 8563 dated 14.09.2020 the OP No. 2 rebuild the said certificate case against the complainant as the original case record was kept in Sinapali Tahasil was misplaced somewhere. By mistake Tahasildar, Sinapali mentioned the certificate case No. 02 of 2020 instead of 02 of 2003. Therefore the OPs pray for dismissal of this case against them.
3.           The only point for adjudication of this case is whether the complainant had cleared up his dues or not?

It is seen from the documents from record that the complainant has availed the loan of Rs. 30,000/- to repay in 25 equal yearly installment with interest @ 13 % per annum as per clause -3 of the agreement bond. He has to authorized his DDO to deduct the dues in monthly installments from his salary every month till his retirement and he shall be liable to pay the annual installment due after his date of retirement as in the case of other borrower. There is nothing on record to show that he has availed this option for clearing his dues since the complainant had not availed this opportunity he was paying the dues like a general borrower. It is admitted fact the complainant paid Rs. 24873/- in two installments and thereafter there is nothing on record to show that the complainant has made any further payment. The interest on the loan of Rs. 30,000/- per annum @ 13 % comes to Rs. 3900/-. So, by the time has repaid the amount of Rs. 24873/- a period of 7 years has already passed and the principal and interest has been calculated by the certificate office as there was no payment prior to that. The complainant is completely silent as to why he has not raised any complain if he was not provided money receipt after payment. The complainant is not a illiterate person and a Govt. servant as stated by him in para -1 and he is well acquainted with the procedure of accounting, Perusal of all the documents goes to show that he has repaid only 24360.50 ps, so he has to repay the rest of the loan amount to the OPs if found to be outstanding and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complainant petition is disposed off with a direction to the OP No. 2 not to take any coercive action the complainant. The OP No. 2 is directed to provide an opportunity to the complainant to put forth his statement of accounts relating to the loan before him and after considering his statement of accounts the petition of the complainant be disposed off and communicate to the complainant and if the complainant is not satisfied with the finding of the certificate officer he is at liberty to file his appeal before the appellate authority against the order passed by the OP No. 2. The case is accordingly disposed of.

Parties to bear their own cost.