Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 31.01.2017

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to close the loan account of complainants and refund the excess deducted amount along with compound interest @ 18%.
2. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
3. To directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen Thousand only ) litigation costs.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainants have asserted that for the purpose of construction of 1^st floor of residential house both complainants who are husband and wife had submitted a loan application of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 15.01.2001. After completing all formalities and due verifications of all the documents the opposite State Bank of India sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of complainant on 30.01.2001 fixing @ 12% as fixed rate of interest. The EMI was fixed as Rs. 2,620/- per month beginning from August 2001. The aforesaid amount was to be liquidated in 144 monthly installments. The aforesaid amount which was being paid by the complainant from his saving account no. 01190019480 are the same was deducted till 09.06.2015.

The grievance of the complainant is that after completion of 144 installments the complainant requested the opposite party Bank for stopping the deduction of EMI.

The complainant have further asserted that as the complainant no. 1 was in need of Rs. 50,000/- for some repairing work in his house hence he further requested the bank for further sanctioning of loan of Rs. 50,000/- which was sanctioned on the fixed interest of 9.5% and the installments was fixed Rs. 647/- per month and the aforesaid EMI was to be deducted from 11.08.2003.

The further grievance of the complainant is that even after completing the 144 installments in the months of September 2013 the opposite parties are still deducting the installments from the salary of the complainant even after his request not to do it but the opposite parties did not take any steps in this regard.

It has been further asserted that despite serving legal notice the grievance of the complainant was not redressed by opposite parties.

From the record it appears that after filing the Vakalatnama the opposite party has not filed any written statement. However opposite party have filed a petition praying there in to expunge the other opposite parties in the light of State Bank of India Act 1955 and on this application a order has been passed on 24.02.2015 but no written statement has been filed. As opposite party have not filed any written statement despite allowing sufficient time then the opposite was debarred from filing written statement and this case was heard in Ex – Parte manner.

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant in detail and examined the record.

The main grievance of the complainant is that as per agreement there was fixed rate of interest and the EMI was to be completed after 144 installments but the opposite party continued to deducted EMI amount from the salary of the complainant despite completion of the EMI.

There is no written statement but the complainant has annexed the legal notice dated 05.10.2013 received by him on behalf of the bank. In this letter it is stated that the complainants have not taken interest on fixed rate and the complainant will have to pay Rs. 1,43,669/- along with cost and interest upto date as per statement of account because the complainants have taken the loan on floating rate.

We are not in a position to decide disputed facts whether the loan was taken by the complainants on fixed rate or floating rate of interest. However we feel that being the responsible organization it was duty of the opposite party to clear the mist in time in which the opposite party has failed, forcing the complainant to approach this Forum.

In view of the aforesaid fact we direct the complainant to file a detail representation to opposite party Bank raising all the matter briefly which has been raised in this complaint petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order. If the aforesaid representation is filed the opposite party Bank or its authority are directed to pass reasoned order on the aforesaid representation within the period of one month from the date of filing of representation by the complainant failing which the opposite party will pay Rs. 50/- per day to the complainant for delay in passing the order.

Hence this complaint stands disposed off with the aforementioned direction.

                             Member                                                                              President