1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is an employee under HAL, Sunabeda and had availed Home Loan of Rs.2.00 lacs from the OP.1 vide A/c. No.544075100351486 in the year, 2000 which was to be repaid @ Rs.1772/- p.m. from the salary of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant repaid the entire loan on December, 2013 but on 08.07.2015 the OP issued a notice demanding a further sum of Rs.24, 196/- towards recovery of loan after 2 years.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1 he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refrain from demanding Rs.24, 196/-.  Further by virtue of an amendment petition dt.08.3.2016 of the complainant, the Manager, Pay Roll, HAL Engine Division, Sunabeda has been added as necessary party to this case.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant on 18.12.2013 has availed a loan of Rs.1, 50,000/- from the OP-Bank to be recovered in 120 EMIs @ Rs.1841/- p.m. vides A/c. No.544075100351486 and has deposited 106 EMIs @ Rs.1772/- instead of 120 EMIs @ Rs.1841/- and has defaulted Rs.25, 024/- as on 31.10.2015. After receipt of demand notice, the complainant has approached the Hon’ble Forum with false pleas in order to avoid the loan outstanding.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The OP.1 has filed an amended counter dt.15.7.2016 contending that out of 120 EMIs, the complainant has paid 10 months from 1/2004 to 10/2004 @ Rs.1820/- and 110 months from 11/2004 to 12/2013 @ Rs.1772/- to the bank towards loan dues instead of Rs.1841/- as fixed by the bank and the loan outstanding is Rs.25, 024/- as on 31.10.2015.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that as per bilateral understanding between the complainant and OP.1 the EMIs were agreed to be recovered from the salary of the complainant and as per request of the complainant the OP.2 had recovered EMIs @ Rs.1820/- from 1/2004 to 10/2004 and thereafter Rs.1772/- p.m. from 11/2004 to 12/2013 and remitted the same to the loan accounts of the complainant.  It is further contended that the OP.2 is not aware of any further demand raised by the OP.1 against the complainant.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     Parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases. The complainant and OP.1 has filed written arguments.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                    In this case, loan of Rs.1, 50,000/- availed by the complainant from the OP.1 on 18.12.2003 vide loan a/c. No.544075100351486 to be recovered in 120 EMIs is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that the OP.1 has informed the OP.2 to deduct EMIs from the salary of the complainant for 120 months i.e. 10 EMIs @ Rs.1820/- and 110 EMIs @ Rs.1772/- and remitted to the bank.  On the other hand the OP.2 in his counter at Para-2 stated that at the request of the complainant, he recovered EMIs @ Rs.1820/- from 01/2004 to 10/2004 for 10 months and thereafter @ Rs.1772/- per month from 11/2004 to 12/2013 for 110 months from the salary of the complainant and remitted the same to the loan account of the complainant.

6.                     The above contentions of the complainant and OP.2 are not supported by any documentary evidence.  No paper is available on record regarding any request of the OP.1 to OP.2 to deduct the EMIs in the above manner.  Similarly, no paper is also available showing that on the request of the complainant, the OP.2 deducted EMIs @ Rs.1820/- for 10 months and @ Rs.1772/- for 110 months.

7.                     The OP No.1 has filed copy of loan proposal form dt.18.12.2003 along with loan sanction letter of even date.  The loan sanction letter reveals that a sum of Rs.1, 50,000/- has been sanctioned in favour of the complainant on 18.12.2003.  It is further revealed that the loan was to be repaid in 120 EMIs @ Rs.1841/- each commencing from January, 2004.  Both the borrower and guarantor being agreed with the terms and conditions of the loan have put their signature on the sanction letter.  In the face of above documents filed by the OP.1, we have no doubt but to agree with the contention of the OP.1 that the EMI was fixed at Rs.1841/- each for 120 months.

8.                     Further it became crystal clear from the statement of accounts as well as contentions of the Ops that the OP.2 has deducted Rs.1820/- for 10 months and Rs.1772/- for 110 months and the amount so deducted has been credited to the loan accounts of the complainant.  The contention of the complainant regarding payment of 120 EMIs to his loan account is true but as per agreement  with the bank, the complainant has not paid the EMIs @ Rs.1841/- per month resulting short fall in payment of loan outstanding every month and subsequent demand raised by the OP.1 against the said loan accounts. Moreover, the complainant knows less deduction of loan dues than that of agreed one but remained silent. In the above circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1.  We also do not find any fault on the part of OP No.2.

9.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)