ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                                 JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.56,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the pension account No.17740100007923 of the complainant and pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant has opened one savings bank account with the opposite party No.1 and through the said account he was drawing his pension regularly which is credited from time to time to that account. The opposite party No.1 illegally deducted Rs.10,000/- on 31.8.2018, Rs.10,000/- on 29.9.2018, Rs.10,000/- on 01.10.2018 and Rs.12,000/- on 01.12.2018. The complainant when came to know about the illegal deduction of money from his pension account immediately objected before the opposite party No.1, but the manager replied that the amount so deducted on the aforesaid dates, was towards the repayment of loan amount incurred by one Swapneswar Swain of Atamul, P.O. Kuradha, of District Jagatsinghpur given to him under PMRY Scheme. The complainant never knew Swapneswar Swain of Atamul nor stood as a guarantor for the loan given to him under PMRY scheme, but the opposite party No.1 did not listen to the reply of the complainant and has illegally deducted Rs.56,000/- till 01.12.2018.

            The opposite party No.1 filed written version stating as under;

            One Swapaneswar Swain had availed KVIC (PMRY) loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 18.3.2011 for the purpose of fabrication works. In the aforesaid loan the complainant stood as guarantor in the said loan and has signed all the necessary documents of the loan. After availed the loan amount the borrower did not repay the loan and became t he loan account NPA. Neither borrower nor guarantor was repaying the loan amount before the bank, therefore the opposite party time and again reminded them to repay the loan amount and notice was duly served upon them. Despite of such notice they did not take steps to repay the loan amount. The complainant also did not agree to repay the loan amount despite of several notices finding no other alternative, the opposite party compelled to recover Rs.56,000/- from his account on various dates. Due to aforesaid act of the opposite party bank, the complainant approached before the office of the Banking Ombudsman. After receiving the said complaint from the complainant the office of the Ombudsman after due enquiry, observed that the complainant stood as guarantor for the borrower Swapneswar Swain. Accordingly the opposite party bank has acted as per his extant guidelines in good faith without any negligence or deficiency in service cannot be attributed to the bank at this stage.

            In view of the observation of learned Banking Ombudsman in complaint No.1710 on 23.11.2018 which the complainant has not disputed by filing any rejoinder/reply otherwise we could have directed the opposite parties to produce such record.

            Since complainant stood as a guarantor before opposite party and the borrower failed to return the loan from the loan rightly the opposite parties have recovered the amount from the complainant. As such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. Besides that complainant has already availed the forum of Banking Ombudsman for which the present case is also not maintainable. Hence the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.