The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that for investment in its business, he obtained Cash Credit loan vides A/c. No.31755597686 and another Term Loan from the OP as per agreement dt.20.5.2011.  The term loan was to be repaid in 60 EMIs @ Rs.44, 450/- with first installment commencing from August, 2011.  It is submitted that due to loss in business the complainant sold away his immovable property and cleared all loan outstanding of the OP on 25.3.2015 but surprisingly the OP demanded Rs.1366/- as part period interest and Rs.257/- towards committed interest and the complainant also paid the above amount on 09.4.2015.  It is further submitted that the OP did not receive the amount in full as demanded by it and left Re.1/- to the credit of the loan account stating that the loan account cannot be closed as it was a term loan for a period of 5 years.  It is also further submitted that he requested the OP through a letter dt.17.4.2015 to receive amount of Rs.71/- so accrued but the OP did not change its view and finally on 20.4.2015 the complainant had paid Rs.81, 420/- towards interest of entire period and obtained No Due Certificate.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.81, 420/- and Rs.1437/- taken towards additional amount with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about sanction of Term Loan vides A/c. No.31755597686 for Rs.26, 67,000/- and Cash Credit Loan vides A/c. No.31755597744 for Rs.15.00 lacs in favour of the complainant with condition that the Term Loan shall be paid by the complainant in 60 months @ Rs.44, 450/- starting from August, 2011 and the last installment falling due on July, 2016.  It is contended that the Capital Investment Subsidy was received by the complainant on 03.03.2014 for Rs.8, 81,151/- but the complainant did not draw the full loan amount and on 17.4.2015 the complainant requested the OP to close the loan amount.  It is further contended that the complainant was supposed to clear the loan in July, 2016 as agreed in the arrangement letter but when the complainant made pre payment of loan amount, he is liable for pre payment charges as agreed in letter of arrangement.  Further the OP admitted about debit of Rs.1366/- to the loan account as part period interest and Rs.257/- towards commitment charges as agreed by the complainant in the said letter.  Regarding debit of Rs.81, 420/-, the OP contended that an amount of Rs.8241/- was debited towards inspection charges and Rs.73, 016/- was debited towards pre payment charges as agreed in the arrangement letter by the complainant.  With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant has filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, Term Loan as well as Cash Credit Loan availed by the complainant from the OP is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that he cleared the loan dues on 25.3.2015 but the OP further debited Rs.1366/- towards part period interest and Rs.257/- towards committed interest to the loan accounts of the complainant.  In spite of payment of all above dues on 09.4.2015, the OP did not close the loan accounts and left Re.1/- to the debit of the account with a plea that the loan cannot be cleared as the complainant had taken the loan for 5 years.  Further the complainant was to pay Rs.81, 420/- towards pre payment charges as demanded by the OP.

5.                     The OP in its counter admitted the above allegations of the complainant and stated that after sanction of loan, the complainant started withdrawal from the loan account but did not draw and utilize the full loan amount and on 17.4.2015 requested the OP to close the loan accounts and release the documents under charge.  It is submitted that the loan was supposed to clear in July as agreed by the complainant and due to pre payment; the complainant had to pay the above charge.

6.                     On perusal of record it was ascertained that the loan was sanctioned by the OP during August, 2011 for 5 years duration and the complainant was to clear the loan in the month of July, 2016 as agreed but it cleared on 25.3.2015.  The Ld. A/R for the OP drew our attention towards letter of arrangement signed between the parties, the copy of which is available on record.  It is seen from that letter at Para-2 that the complainant was to pay the commitment charges and pre payment charges as applicable.  In view of such an agreement with the bank, the complainant is to pay all such charges levied by the OP.  In this manner, the OP has taken Rs.1366/- towards part period interest and Rs.257/- towards commitment charges.  Further the OP has taken Rs.81, 420/- towards pre payment charges.  As the complainant had foreclosed his loan dues, the OP as per conditions of letter of arrangement has taken the pre payment charges.

7.                     In the above premises, it can be concluded that by charging the above dues, the OP has committed no mistake.  Rather, the OP has acted as per agreement and issued NDC in favour of the complainant.  Hence we do not see any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)