By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

          The case of the complainants in brief is that he is a customer of the OP Bank being his A/C No. 1275010188234. He took a BSKP loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the OP Bank in the year 2011 after observing all the necessary criteria. While repayment of the installment of the loan, some installment became due. To realize the said loan amount and arrear dues the bank filed a Pre Litigation case being No. 138/Feb/2016 before the lok Adalat, Purba Medinipur held on 06.03.16 demanding a total dues of Rs. 1,42,060/-.  The ld. Lok Adalat settled the dispute and ordered the complainant to pay Rs. 55,000/- as per settlement between the parties. It was also ordered by the Lok Adalat that the OP shall refund all the deposited documents to the petitioner within one month of full repayment of the loan amount. The complainant paid all the dues of Rs. 54,500/- by 26.05.16 as he already paid Rs. 500/- on the date of hearing in the Lok Adalat. Thus he has repaid all the dues to the Bank.

          It is the further allegation of the complainant that the bank did not return the documents as per order of the Lok Adalat and surprisingly fridge the A/C of the complainant in the bank and realized an amount of Rs. 10,015,98  on 18.06.16, Rs. 17,002.98 on 30.07.16 and Rs.20,673,47 Ps on 15.12.16 and Rs. 16,150/-  on 07.01.17 without any reason. However they again credited an amount of Rs. 16,150/- on the same day id on 07.01.17. It is the case of the complainant that the bank has done a serious deficiency of service deliberately and has prayed for reliefs as per prayer of the complaint.

          The OPs contested the case by filing written version. They claimed that the petition is not maintainable. The specific case of the defence is that the claimant became defaulter in repayment of the loan taken from the bank and so, the A/C of the complainant was declared NPA on 31.12.2013. The OP admits the matter of Lok Adalat and further contends that 90 days was given to the complainant for repayment of agreed sum of  Rs. 55,000/- in three instalments by 05.06.16. But it is the case of this OP that the complainant deposited Rs. 46,500/- till 05.06.2016. The OP demands that as the complainant did not obey the order of Lok Adalat, so the order has become infructuous and the complainant is bound to repay all the dues. As the complainant did not turn up to the bank to settle the dispute, they did not give NOC to the complainant.

        The OPs pray for dismissal of the case with cost.

          On the above pleadings the issues need to be considered is i) whether the case is maintainable in its present form and nature and ii) whether the claimants are entitled to get any relief in the instant case.

          We have perused the complaint petition, the written version and all the documents filed by both the parties in connection with this case.

          Admittedly the complainant took a loan from the OP Bank which has been stated in the facts of the case and it is also admitted that the said loan was settled ion the Lok Adalat, Purba Medinipur in the form of Pre Litigation Case No. 138
Feb, 2016 held on 03.06.16 for a total demand of Rs. 1,42,060/-. We have perused the order of the Lok Adalat and the award passed by the Lok Adalat and the award that the complainant/borrower shall pay a sum of Rs. 55,000/- out of total dues of 1,42,060/- within ninety days in three instalments and to make spot payment of Rs. 500/-and further to pay Rs. 6000/- within 25.03.16 and that the Bank shall issue the NOC/Clearance certificate along with the documents kept with them  within 30 days  from the date of last payment to the OP/borrower.

          The complainant in this case alleged that though he paid the entire amount to the OP bank the bank has not given any NOC certificate and did not return the documents kept with the bank as security of the loan. Hence, the OP bank committed deficiency of service.

          According to the OP Bank the complainant intentionally and deliberately did not comply the order or direction of the Lok Adalat.  The complainant deposited Rs. 6000/- on 24.03.16 and Rs. 40,000/- on 26.05.16 and he deposited Rs. 500/- on spot on the date order in the Lok Adalat. Thus, he deposited total amount of Rs 46,500/- not Rs. 55,000/- as per order of the Lok Adalat. The complainant disobeyed the order of the Lok Adalat. So, the order of the Lok Adalat has no effect due to non-compliance of the order. According to the OP Bank as per banking rules and regulations OP was compelled to realize the remaining outstanding dues from the borrower ie. Rs. 10,015.98 on 18.06.2016, Rs. 17,002.98 on 30.07.16 and Rs 20,673.47 on 15.12.2016 from the borrower’s savings A/C No. 1275010188234.

          The Statement of A/C of the complainant produced in the case also supports the above version of the OP regarding deposit made by the complainant after order of Lok Adalat. In the complaint also the complainant has shown that he paid Rs. 500/- on 07.03.16, Rs. 6000/- on 24.03.16 and Rs. 40,000/- on 26.05.16 which corroborates the statement of A/C filed by the OP.

        In view of the case of the OP the bank, a sum of Rs. 8,500/- is still due from the borrower/complainant.

It is also admitted by the OP in para 22 of their WV that the complainant deposited total amount of  Rs. 46,500/- after order of the Lok Adalat ,but there is no paper to show that the OP filed any Execution Case for executing the order of the Lok Adalat. Instead they deducted Rs. 10,015.98 on 18.06.2016, Rs. 17,002.98 on 30.0716 and Rs 20,673.47 on 15.12.16 as per para 23 of the WV of the OP. So, it is apparent that the bank in spite of taking proper recourse of law, has deducted  more than due amount of 8,500/- from the Account of the complainant borrower which is obviously not a fair practice on the part of the bank. In addition to that it is pertinent to mention here that the order of the Lok Adalat was through a Pre litigation Case, not in a case filed according to law. So, it appears that non-compliance of the order of the Lok Adalat on the part of the bank is certainly deficiency of service.

So considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that the case is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to get the benefits as prayed for.

       Hence, it is

                                                                                    ORDERED

      That the complaint case no. 27 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party, United Bank of India.

      The OP is directed to issue the NOC/Clearance certificate to the complainant, to return all the documents kept in the bank against the loan to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order and to return the extra  amount deducted from the A/C of the borrower after order of the Lok Adalat, deducting an amount of Rs. 8,500/- for satisfaction of the order of ld. Lok Adalat.

       The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day till compliance of this order as punitive charge, which sum will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

      Parties do bear their respective cost.

      Let copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.