For the complainant: Sri S.K.Sahu & Associate Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
For the OP: Sri S.K.Agrawal, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
JUDGMENT
The facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant has availed a loan from the Opposite party for an amount of Rs.12,53,000/- on 30.10.2009 for purchase of a TATA – LPT 2515 bearing Regn. No.OR 08E 0787 to maintain his livelihood and the Emi was fixed to repay the same in 66 monthly instalments. The complainant was repaying the loan since 2009 and he has already paid aRs.17,84,333/- . After payment of such huge amount the OP Bank has issued a letter to the complainant demanding an outstanding amount of Rs.10,51,000/- which is illegal and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant given proposal to the OP Bank to settle the loan account by waiving of interest and overdue interest as the complainant has paid Rs.5,31,333/- as interest but the op Bank turned down to the pro0posal of the OTS and rejected the same. Hence prayed to direct the OP to settle the loan account with OTS and direct the Ops not to charge any further interest. The complainant filed separate petition U/s 13(3-B) of the C.P.Act to pass interim order not to seize the vehicle. Hence, this complaint.
Being noticed, the Opposite Parties appeared through their advocate Sri S.K.Agrawal and filed written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the Opposite Party has sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.12,53,000/- to the complainant for purchase of a TATA LTP 2515 and the complainant has executed the security documents as prescribed by the Bank and thereby agreed by the term and conditions of the OP Bank and also agreed to repay the loan amount in 66 Emi @ Rs.27,200/- which start from 01.05.2009 and the last EMI was due on 30.09.2014. The complainant has not deposited the EMI in due dates and time as agreed upon and was depositing in a very irregular intervals. As on 27.06.2014 the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.9,60,000/- and after that he has not repaid a single paisa and at last on 30.05.2016 the account was categorized as NPA and at last the bank issued a demand notice in favour of the complainant to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.10,51,372/- . The complainant has not submitted any OTS proposal in the Bank. The OP Bank is ready to consider the OTs proposal if the same will be submitted by the complainant. The complainant has not deposited Rs.5,31,333/- towards interest and principal amount of Rs.12,53,000/- in his loan account.
The Op Bank further submitted that it is within the purview of the law to serve notice on the borrower to repay the outstanding loan amount as well as to take possession of the vehicle and immovable properties for recovery of the outstanding dues and this action of the Bank is not coming under the purview of deficiency of service. The OP humbly submits to vacate the stay order passed against the Opp.Party. Hence, prayed to dismiss the case against the OP with cost.
F I N D I N G
The Complainant’s version is that he has availed loan from opposite parties to purchase one TATA LTP 2515 vehicle and already paid Rs.12,53,000/- towards the principal loan amount and Rs.5,31,333/- towards interest and in total Rs.17,84,333/- but the Ops have illegally charged the overdue interest and issued notice demanding Rs.10,51,000/- and harassing the complainant and not allowing to settle the loan amount in one time settlement scheme.
On the other hand the Opp.Party submitted that, the complainant has availed loan of Rs.12,53,000/- for purchase of a Tata LTP 2515 vehicle and agreed to repay the amount loan with interest in 66 installments @ Rs.27,200/- per month. Both the parties have not denied the facts in this case. As per the complainant he has already paid Rs.17,84,333/- to which the OP Company denied and as per the Opposite Parties the complainant has paid Rs.9,60,000/- as on 27.06.2016 and now the OP bank claims outstanding amount of Rs.10,51,372/- .
From the aforesaid findings and on perusal of the documents filed by the complainant , it is not clear that the complainant has paid Rs.17,84,333/- because the account statement filed by the complainant shows the deposit amount of the complainant but not as claimed by the complainant. However, as both the parties are interested to settle the loan amount under One Time Settlement Scheme , we have no hesitation to allow them to settle the same as per the norms applicable for One Time Settlement .Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
Hence, the Opposite Party is directed to settle the outstanding loan account under OTS Scheme in the event if the complainant applying for the same and allow the complainant to pay the same within a reasonable time and no further interest charge from the date of filing of this case. There shall be no order as to cost and compensation. Parties to bear their own cost.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 31st day of December ,2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.
Member President
Documents relied upon:
By the Complainant:
- Copy of Certificate of Registration
- Copy of Bank Statement- 6 pages
- Copy of letter No.64 dt.10.08.2016 of OP Bank, Letter No.Nil dt.15.07.16, Letter No.09/2015-16 dt.21.05.2015.
- Copy of Demand Notice dt.23.06.2016.
By the OP: Nil
