Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.   The unfolded story of the complainant is that he complainant has incurred loan from the OP on 13.8.1988 on the terms to repay the same with interest at the rate of 15% per annum in 36 monthly instalments with further condition to hold/purchase 5% share of the Bank and to keep Rs.10,000/- as security deposit and to keep land and building as collateral security  for the sanction of money. Complainant has mortgaged the property with the OP. It is alleged that the mortgage deed was subsequently tampered by the OP enhancing interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum with early renewal. It is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

3.      It is alleged that the complainant though paid some amount but due to  default the OTS proposal was moved at the instance of OP. It was agreed between the parties that Rs. 1,20, 346/-  should be payable on or before 17.4.2004. It is also alleged inter alia that the matter went to the court of D.R.C.S. but D.R.C.S. refused to interfere with the matter. Then  notice was issued to the complainant under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.  However, the matter could not be solved for which the complainant filed the complaint before this Commission.

4.      OP filed written version stating that the complainant has borrowed money from the OP  to start a business. The complainant did  not  pay all the installments for which the   amount has become Rs. 5,73,605/- even if  principal amount was Rs.50,000/-. However, the council has taken a decision for recovery of Rs.4,26,000/- from the complainant.

5.      After hearing both the parties, we hereby framed two issues :-

I)       Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

II)      Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation from the OP?

6.      It is admitted fact that  the complainant has incurred loan of Rs.50,000/- from the OP – Bank. It is also not in issue that the said property of the complainant was mortgaged with the OP as collateral security.

7.      During course of hearing, parties were asked to go for mutual settlement. The OP took step to convince the BoardMember for disposal of the case. Accordingly,  learned counsel for  OP No. 2 submitted the calculation sheet dulyapproved by the Board for payment of Rs.4,26,000/- by the complainant to the OP so that the matter can be disposed of.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he is very poor and not able to maintain his business. When Rs.50,000/- has been granted as  loan in long back and there is also OTS proposal between the parties, same was not successful for the simple reason  not necessary to discuss now. The fact remains that  no SARFAESI Case started till now, parties are willing to settle the matter, the  fact that interest should not be more than the principal u/s 59(a) of Co-operative Society Act, we are of the view that the OP instead of lingering the matter should have disposed of the matter by taking it as special case when Rs.50,000/- has been granted  as loan without any further calculation in detail is not considered how it is calculated to pay Rs.4,26,000/-.

9.      The OTS proposal was mooted on 17.3.2004 but the same has not been  settled due to non-payment of amount by the complainant on due time as agreed upon. Then the matter went to different authorities as discussed above. We are of the view that the OP has not been very much persuasive to dilutethe loan amount. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When the OTS proposal was rooted, it is for the OP - Bank to finalize the matter so as not to raise the issue at present. In the instant case,  the litigation continued since long and OTS proposal having not being persuaded by the parties.

10.    Be that as it may, fault of the complainant cannot be  lost at all because complainant failed to pay the entire amount under the OTS.  When we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant’s in action to pay loan under OTS, we intend to close the matter by  consideringa mutual settlement between the parties.

11.    In view of our above observation in the last proceeding the OP has taken a some proactive step and as such he has come with a proposal for complainant to pay Rs.4,26,000/- so as to dilute the matter for ever. The complainant is ready to pay Rs.2.00 lacs as submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant.

12.    In view of aforesaid discussion and for settlement of the matter, it isbetter for the complainant to pay Rs.3.00 (Rupees three lacs) to the OP – Bank and close the matter for ever. We have considered this and after deducting miscellaneous expenses fromthe calculation sheet submitted by OP.

13.    In view of the aforesaid observation, we do not want to impose any compensation and cost on the OP. This order is being passed keeping in view of all the proceedings overthe years pending between the parties.

14.    Therefore, the complaint is disposed of with direction to make the payment of Rs.3.00 (Rupees three lacs) by the complainant to the OP within a period of 60 (sixty) days  and OP would issue NOC  within seven days of such payment.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.