This appeal is directed against the final order dated 07.11.2019 in CC No. 10. S. 2019 of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that one Mr. S. Basunia registered a Consumer Complaint on 30.09.2019 before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri to the score that on May 2015 he had taken a home loan of Rs. 15 Lakh from LIC Housing and Finance Siliguri Branch and the rate of interest was 9.9% P.A. for the first two years and thereafter the rate of interest would be available as per market situation. The EMI was fixed at Rs. 14,396/- per month. Said loan transaction was debited through SBI account Bearing No. 30759977739 and the EMI was deducted through ECS. On May 2017 the complainant was not at his home and for that reason he could not deduct the EMI for the month of May 2017 and June 2017. He was asked to pay a fine for not deducting the EMI on May 2017 in due time. The complainant denies to pay the fine as the complainant had enough balance in his account and the LIC Authority had opportunity to have deduction of the said amount from the loan account and asked them to deduct the EMI from his bank account through ECS process. The further case of the complainant is that the Opposite Party No. 1 subsequently started to deduct the interest at the rate of 11.5% after the loan of two years and it was not communicated to the complainant. While, the complainant asked the O.P. No. 1 as to why more amount was deducted for his loan amount then it was replied that due to non-paid amount fine for the month of June 2017 the excess money was deducted from the loan account. The initial stage the plot charge was realized from the complainant Rs. 1,180/- but subsequently the O.P. No. 1 has started to realize Rs. 1,180/- from the complainant without giving notice to the complainant. Subsequently, the EMI amount was increased with contention the loan tenure was reduced to 18 months from initial agreement of 20 years and in this way the Opposite Party No. 1 has recovered excess money from the complainant without any excuse and harass the complainant repeatedly while he asked the O.P. No. 1 as to why excess money was deducted from him he was not answered. So, he claimed compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2. As the O.P. No. 2 the SBI where the loan amount was lying also had fault to go on reduction of increasing amount from the account of the complainant and for that reason both O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 was implicated in this case for mental harassment, agony etc. The instant Consumer Complaint was admitted in due course. The notice was issued upon O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. O.P. No. 1 did not contest the case in spite of receiving notice. The O.P. No. 2 entered appearance before the Ld. Forum through representative but subsequently O.P. NO. 2 also did not contest the case by filing W.V. Accordingly, the case was placed for Ex-parte hearing. The Ld. Forum heard the case Ex-parte and came into a conclusion that the tenure of the loan was fixed for 18 years that is the up to May 2033 and for that reason no cause of action arose and the case was registered in pre-mature stage and for that reason the complaint case was dismissed on merit. Curiously enough the Ld. Forum has imposed fine of Rs. 7,000/- upon O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 severally and jointly and the same amount to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund as because the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 without contesting the case or without challenging the Consumer Complaint has automatically favored the case of the complainant. Being aggrieved with this order the complainant Mr. S. Basunia has registered the appeal. The respondent No. 1 LIC Housing and Finance in spite of receiving notice of appeal did not contest the case. The SBI, Ranidanga Branch has contested the case through Ld. Advocate Mr. R. Tripathi. Written Note of Argument of both sides was placed. Appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate Mr. J. Ganguly and Ld. Advocate of respondent No. 2 Mr. R. Tripathi.

                                            Decisions with reasons

Admitted position is that the complainant is a loanee who has secured the home loan from the LIC Housing and Finance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- at the rate of interest 9.9% Per-month and subsequently it was fixed at the rate of 11.5% Per-month. The bone of contention is that the LIC Authority has deducted more amount than actual amount of EMI which was deducted from the account of the appellant lying in the SBI, Ranidanga Branch. Unnecessary fines were also deducted having no legal sanctity and rate of interest was fixed not at the market price whimsically and without the knowledge of the complainant. He has asked to the respondent to refund the money which was utterly refused on the part of the respondents and for that reason this case has been registered before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri which has not been contested by the other side by filing any W.V. Now in the appellate stage the respondent No. 2 State Bank of India, Ranidanga Branch contended that they have nothing to do but only to allow LIC to deduct the amount from the account maintained in their Branch and they have not contested the case as because SBI had no direct liability in this transaction while the Ld. Forum unnecessarily imposed fine of Rs. 7,000/- upon the Bank which is not justified in the eye of law. After having heard the Ld. Advocate of both sides, it appears that though the loan period covers 20 years at the time of loan agreement but subsequently it was reduced to 18 years and for that reason the entire loan amount to be settled full and final in the year 2033. Ld. Forum has opined that the loan transaction was continuing and for that reason there was no cause of action on the part of the complainant to register a Consumer Complaint which was immature and appears to be frivolous. Curiously enough Ld. Forum has not discussed about the merit of the case. Ld. Forum could not decide the matter whether the Opposite Parties had any deficiency in providing service to a loanee in a proper manner or not. Ld. Forum also did not consider whether extra amount was debited by the LIC through the Bank Account maintained in the SBI, Ranidanga Branch. All the questions raised before the Ld. Forum from the end of the complainant remained unanswered. While, the Opposite Parties that is LIC Housing and Finance and the SBI unnecessarily penalized to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the fund of Consumer Welfare fund as because they have not contested the case. This finding of the Ld. Forum also appears to be not healthy or judicious in the arena of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, the entire judgement and final order passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri in this case is full of errors, defective and just opposite to natural justice. So, the final order of Ld. Forum requires to be interfered in the appeal.

                                                            Hence, it is ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest without imposing any cost. The final order delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri dated 07.11.2019 in CC No. 10.S.2019 is hereby set aside. Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri is requested to re-open the case and to collect the W.V from the willing party of O.P who intent to contest the case by filing W.V within 45 days from the date of this order. Thereafter, Ld. Forum shall re-hear the case as per provisions of law and dispose of the instant Consumer Complaint on its own merit. The appellant and the Opposite Parties/respondents are asked to appear before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri on 04.10.2021 and the respondents if they want shall file the W.V on that day.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost and the same is to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri through email. Thus, the appeal completely disposed of.