Advocate for the complainant-Sri A.K.Joshi.
Advocate for the O.Ps - None.
Date of filing of the case – 03.08.2016
Date of order - 29.08.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit.
1, The case of the complainant is that, he being a central Government employee was sanctioned with a personal loan by the O.P.No.1 for an amount of Rs 3, 00,000/- on dt.17.12.2004 vide loan A/C- 11342115604. According to the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement the loan amount was deducted from the salary of the complainant on each month with an interest @ 12.75% P.A. Accordingly the O.P.No.2 deducted the same from the salary of the complainant till the entire loan amount was repaid with interest i.e till February 2015. The complainant alleges that although he had repaid all the loan amount along with interest the O.P.No.1 again demanded Rs 84,379 which is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. Both the O.Ps have filed their written version separately. According to O.P.No.2, the DDO is not responsible for any out-standing dues and he has acted as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by deducting the loan amount from the salary of the employee and remitted the same to the S.B.I. main Branch Bolangir. The O.P.No.1 did not come up with any specific case and simply submitted that, C.S.No.111 of 2016 has already been filed before the Civil Judge for recovery of loan amount and hence this proceeding is liable to be stayed till disposal of the civil suit.
3. Perused the pleadings and material available on record. It is seen from the version of the O.P.1 that, a suit is pending before the civil court for realization of loan amount against the complainant. The complainant objected the same and submitted that, he has no knowledge about the pendency of the civil suit nor he has received any notice from the civil court. The proceeding before Consumer Forum is an additional remedy u/s.3 of the C.P.Act and hence this forum has jurisdiction to decide th3e matter relating to deficiency in service. There is no bar for the O.P.No.1 to approach the Civil Court for Redressal of his grievance.
4. It is an admitted fact that, the O.P.No.1 has sanctioned a personal loan amounting to Rs 3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant which are to be repaid by deducting the amount from the salary of the complainant. It is seen from the documentary evidence filed by the complainant that, the D.D.O i.e O.P.No.2 is regularly deducting the loan amount from the salary of the complainant and is issuing the pay slip for each month. As per the pay slip all the loan amount has already been deducted vide pay slip for the month of January 2015 and since then no amount was deducted from the salary of the complainant. It is seen from the Advocate notice sent by the O.P.No.1 that there was outstanding of Rs 84,379/- towards the loan amount of the complainant. The said notice does not disclose any account statement nor disclose how the outstanding amount was calculated when the loan amount was deducted from the salary of the complainant on each and every month till final payment. Therefore in the absence of any believable evidence produced by the O.P.1, it cannot be said that there is outstanding of loan amount against the complainant. After repayment of all the loan amount again demanding a sum of Rs 84,379/- by the O.P.1 cannot be said to be fair and hence the said act of the O.P.1 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1.Hrence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.P.1 is directed to issue NOC in favour of the complainant and not to demand any outstanding amount relating to loan A/C No.11342115604. The O.P.1 is further directed to pay Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only ) to the complainant towards compensation and cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
Order pronounced in open forum this the 29th day of August 2017.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
Member. Member. President.
