This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 25.07.2019 in CC No 19 of 2019 by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. The fact of the case in brief is that the appellant Narayan Chandra Kundu obtained H.B. loan (mortgage) from Indian Bank Siliguri to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The time frame of repayment the loan was 10 years. Due to some stringent financial condition of Narayan Chandra Kundu and Kalpana Kundu (Joint Loan) unable to pay installments. The Indian Bank then sold the said unrecovered loan amount to A.R.C.L (respondent No. 2). The men of A.R.C.L came to the house of the appellant for recovery of such loan. Then the appellant contacted the Branch Manager of Indian Bank and took sometime for payment of the dues amount and the appellant paid Rs. 1,05,000/- for repayment of loan amount from 14.11.2011 to 02.09.2013. On 31.07.2013 the respondent No. 2 ARCL Vide a letter directed the appellant to make payment of Rs. 5,82,588/-. The appellant was forced to settle the dispute with ARCL by making payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 20.04.2014. The case of the appellant is that the Indian Bank has sold out the loan to ARCL on 31.03.2011 then in which way the Indian Bank has recovered Rs. 1,05,000/- from them which was excess amount paid by the appellant and was not adjusted with the said settlement as full and final payment of said House Building Loan. So, the Complainant ultimately registered the Consumer Complainant against Indian Bank Siliguri Branch and the authorized signatory of ARCL. The Consumer Complaint was registered in due time and after admission the notice was sent to the address of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 in spite of receiving notice did not contest the case while respondent No. 2 ARCL has contested the instant Consumer Case by filing Written Version. The basic case of the respondent No. 2 is that the Opposite Party No. 1 Indian Bank has unconditionally and irrevocably assigned and transferred the interest of outstanding loan of the appellant and released the debt of the Complainant including all the liability and interest including the underlying security in the face of agreement, mortgage deeds and all other transactional documents relating thereto in favour of ARCL by virtue of Section 5 of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002 and the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the appellant/complainant Vide Letter dated 31.07.2013. The further case is that the outstanding loan amount of appellant with interest came to the tune of Rs. 5,82,588/- and it was intimated to the Complainant/Appellant on 31.07.2013. Thereafter, the said account was settled to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- and the Complainant/Appellant has paid the said settlement money during the course of settlement it was not brought to the notice of ARCL that in the meantime the Complainant/Appellant has paid Rs. 1,05,000/- to the original lender respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 has no connection with the payment of such 1,05,000/- to the respondent No. 1 by the appellant. If, the appellant has paid any excess amount to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 had no liability over the transaction as because prior to such payment the respondent No. 2 had already acquired the interest of the said loan account from the respondent No. 1. Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri after recording the evidences came into conclusion that the Complainant/Appellant could not show any material documents to prove that after transfer of the outstanding loan by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 the Complainant has paid Rs. 1,05,000/- to the respondent No. 1. The claim of excess payment could not be proved also on the part of the Complainant and for that reason Complainant was not entitled to get any relief and the instant Consumer Complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the appreciation of evidence on the part of the Ld. Forum was not correct one and Ld. Forum has passed the impugned order which was not vested by law. The appeal was admitted in due course. Both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 received the notice of appeal. Both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have contested the case through their Ld. Advocates. In this case the respondent No. 1 Indian Bank has contested the case through Ld. Advocate Mr. R. Banik. The respondent No. 2 had contested through Ld. Advocate Mr. M. Paul. The appellant has conducted the case through Ld. Advocate Mr. B. Ghosh. Appeal was heard in presence of the Legal Counsels appointed by the parties to the case.

Decision with reasons

Having heard, the Ld. Counsels it is come to the notice of this Bench that the appellant has secured a house building loan by mortgaging the immovable property from Indian Bank Siliguri Branch and they were making payment of the loan amount with interest in due time. Subsequently, the Indian Bank without intimation to the loanee has sold out the loan interest to ARCL as per provisions of Sarfaesi Act. While the men of ARCL came to the house of the appellants to recover the outstanding loan amount then the appellant came to know about the said loan transfer arrangement. Now, the Appellant/Complainant makes allegation that in spite of selling out the loan interest to respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 still was recovering the loan amount in a continuous process for a year and in this way has recovered Rs. 1,05,000/- as excess amount. The outstanding loan amount was settled between the ARCL and the Loanee (appellants) at the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- and due time that amount was paid on the part of the appellant. Now, the appellant claims to get back Rs. 1,05,000/- from Indian Bank and also prays for compensation for mental harassment and litigation cost. Now, the question is whether the original lender can sell out the loan interest of a Loanee to another person. The question is vague as because after the passing of Sarfaesi Act, 2002 the lender has every right to sell out any outstanding loan interest to a financial institution having license to purchase the outstanding loans by an agreement. The ARCL is a financial institution having business through out India and they have purchased the said outstanding loan of Complainant/Appellant from the original lender Indian Bank Siliguri Branch. Now, the question is whether the Appellant/Complainant came to know about the said assignment and transfer of said loan to ARCL ARMS prior to 31.07.2013 or not. A copy of letter dated 12.10.2011 produced (Annexure – D) by ARCL makes it clear that the Loanee was duly intimated about such assignment and transfer and the outstanding loan amount at that point of time was Rs. 4,77,262/- The letter dated 27.03.2014 produced by ARCL shows that the matter was settled at Rs. 3,50,000/- against the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 5,51,103/-. The Complainant/Appellant claims that they have paid excess amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- to the respondent No. 1 Indian Bank. The respondent No. 2 ARCL in W.V mentions that they have purchased the said outstanding loan from respondent No. 1 on 28.12.2010. The Bank’s statements of accounts produced by the appellant shows that the said assignment was sold to ARCL by Indian Bank in consideration price of Rs. 4 Lakh. The ARCL Authority has settled the said outstanding loan amount in the year 2014 at Rs. 3,50,000/-. The Indian Bank received repayment of loan account from appellant in spite of transfer of interest of loan outstanding which speaks that some defects was there in the system of Indian Bank and the entire process of selling out the outstanding loan of respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 appears to be not smooth and large complications has arisen. The appellant raises allegations that the security papers including the deeds of immovable property which was mortgaged to Indian Bank Siliguri Branch at the time of securing the loan has not yet returned and the said loan account is still remains in idle condition and full and final settlement of the loan has yet not completed which are causing serious harassment to a Loanee who has deposited the security and mortgaged deed of the immovable properties for obtaining the loan. The question whether the Indian Bank has in unauthorized manner recovered 1,05,000/- from the appellant/Loanee and a full and final settlement is urgently required for the interest of a Loanee who has secured the loan for making a dwelling house by depositing all the papers of his immovable property. The question of outstanding or excess of amount collected by the respondent No. 1 Bank from the appellants remains pending and the Bank Authority and the ARCL should take necessary initiative to settle the matter in a proper manner and to make arrangement so that the Loanee can get return back all his documents and securities he has deposited before the respondent No. 1 Bank at the time of seeking the loan. Right now, the Bench considers its necessity for applying the right approach of the Bank Authority and the financial institution like ARCL ARMS in a proper manner to solve the dispute. At this appellate stage this Bench do not want to interfere with the order of Ld. Forum but the Ld. Forum should refer the matter to Indian Bank of Siliguri and to ARCL ARMS respondent No. 2 to sit together and to make arrangement for final settlement of the loan account of the appellant lying in respondent No. 1 Bank and to make arrangement for return back all the documents and deeds the appellants mortgaged at the time of securing the loan and this process should be completed within two months. The excess amount which is till lying in the loan account of the appellant at respondent No. 1 Bank Branch should be settled finally and amicably between the appellant and the respondent No. 1.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby disposed of to the effect that the Final Order delivered by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri dated 25.07.2019 in CC No 19 of 2019 is hereby confirmed subject to, with a direction and approach that Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri shall instruct the respondent No. 1 and 2 and the appellant to sit together regarding the full and final settlement of the loan account and the money deposited in the same account should be settled amicably and respondent No. 1 shall make arrangement for return back the security and mortgage deeds and other related documents to the appellants which they had deposited at the time of obtaining the loan. The entire process should be completed within two months from this day, failing which the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri shall take appropriate action as per provisions of law.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.