DATE OF FILING : 08-08-2013. DATE OF S/R : 10-01-2014. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 19-03-2014. Sri Bijay Kumar Singh, son of late Maheshwar Prasad Singh, residing at flat no. 203, 2nd floor, Block – A, 27, Dr. P.K. Banerjee Road, Howrah – 711001. -------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Salkia Branch, Sree Arabinda Road, Salkia, Howrah. 2. General Manager, State Bank of India, 9, G.T. Road ( s ), Howrah – 711101.------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to settle the loan amount after receiving Rs. 19,200/- from the complainant being the actual dues and to pay compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for causing mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- as the o.ps. arbitrarily enhanced EMI from Rs.2,400/- p.m. to Rs. 3,805/- p.m. though at the time of disbursement of the loan of Rs. 2 lakhs the o.ps. fixed the EMI for 120 months. The further allegation of the complainant is that the o.ps. arbitrarily demanded Rs. 70,356/- by serving notice dated 07-01-2013 and 05-07-2013 2. The o.ps. in spite of several opportunities did not file the written version. So the case matter was heard ex parte against them. 3. Two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant was sanctioned a house building loan to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs by the o.p. bank with fixed interest @ 8% p.a. on 27-02-2014. The EMI was fixed Rs. 2,340/- repayable in 120 EMIs. The complainant paid 15 EMIs at the same rate repaying Rs. 35,100/-. On and from 17-04-2004 till 28-02-2014 the complainant paid 119 EMIs and only one EMI remained due. 5. Subsequently the o.ps. enhanced the EMI rate from Rs. 2400/- to Rs.3,805/- through a notice on 07-01-2013 claiming Rs. 24,480/- as due. 6. On 04-04-2013 the o.p. bank directed the complainant to repay the dues within 16-04-2013 though there remained no dues at all. Lastly the o.ps. disclosed to the complainant that in all Rs. 70,356/- is due as on 15-07-2013. 7. We have no hesitation in our mind that the o.p. bank acted arbitrarily in charging the complainant with imaginary arrear. We fail to understand how the o.ps. could enhance the EMI rate from Rs. 2,400/- to Rs. 3,805/- when the 120 EMIs was allotted with Rs. 2,400/- ( Rs. 2,340/- ) as EMI. The conduct of the o.ps. amounts to gross unfair trade practice when Rs. 19,200/- only appears due for settlement of the loan. We are, therefore, of the view that the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 277 of 2013 ( HDF 277 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps. The O.Ps. be directed to settle the loan account after receiving Rs. 19,200/- ( Rupees nineteen thousand two hundred ) from the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order The o.ps. do also pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing unnecessary mental pain and prolonged harassment and a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
