1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that she availed housing loan of Rs.5, 25,733/- on 15.7.2009 from OP.1 with interest @ 9% p.a. to be paid in EMIs @ Rs.5212/- and the entire loan amount was disbursed by the Ops by 30.10.2009 vide loan A/c No.30825149600.  It is submitted that she was paying EMIs from 20.1.2010 regularly but the OP.1 on 31.12.2012 had issued demand notice for Rs.33, 000/- and during January and February, 2013 sent  other demand notices for Rs.24, 300/- towards payment of arrear amount.  Further on 08.7.2013 the OP.1 also sent demand notice for Rs.41, 408/- towards defaulted amount.  It is further submitted that for default of paltry amount, the OP.1 issued SARFAESI notice on 14.2.2014 and the complainant deposited Rs.1, 00,200/- in between 02.3.14 to 11.8.2014 but on 12.8.2014 the OP took possession of the house property of the complainant on 12.8.2014 for which the complainant approached Hon’ble High Court of Odisha and as per direction, the complainant deposited Rs.50, 000/- with the OP.1 on 03.11.2014 to evade any harsh step by OP.1.  It is also submitted that the OP.1  demanded Rs.46, 072/- towards part interest on 31.3.2014 and Rs.1, 02,236/- on 31.8.2014 towards part interest  to the loan accounts of the complainant which is excessive when the rate of interest was agreed to be charged @ 9% p.a.  The complainant has objected the interests charged by the OP but did not get any satisfactory reply.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to explain debit of excessive amount towards interest during August, 2014 to reconcile loan ledger, credit the excessive amount to the loan account and to pay Rs.5.00 lac towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint admitting the loan amount of Rs.5, 25,733/- sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the complainant vide loan A/c No.30825149600 with Rs.5212/- towards EMIs.  It is contended that due to default in loan dues, the Bank issued notice u/s.13 (2) of SARFAESI Act but the complainant did not comply with the said notice for which notice u/s.13 (4) of the said Act was issued and the complainant avoided to said notices for which the house of the complainant was put to auction.  It is further contended that the complainant filed a petition before Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Jeypore for withdrawal of said Writ and thereafter the case was dropped.  It is also contended that the bank has demanded unrealized interest since the complainant is a regular defaulter and the said interest has been displayed in the loan account statement of the complainant on automatic calculation basis and the OP has no authority to add or delete the same.  The Ops also contended that now the complainant is regular in payment of loan dues and thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the housing loan sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the complainant by OP.1 is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that for a paltry defaulted loan amount the bank has charged unexplained higher side of interest and has realized the same on different point of time.  It is seen from the record that the complainant has admitted about her default in payment of loan dues.  In this case, the complainant through an agreement has availed the loan.  Both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of said agreement.  If the complainant failed to pay the loan dues or paid the same after due date, definitely the interest part will be high.  Time is the essence of agreement and hence the complainant was to pay the loan dues in time.

5.                     Due to default in payment of loan dues, the OP.1 has issued notice u/s.13 (2) and 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act on different point of time besides default notices.  Due to such inaction of the complainant the property of the complainant was brought to the possession of the bank and put to auction.  All those things happened only due to nonpayment of loan dues by the complainant. 

6.                     The complainant has also preferred writ against the Ops and another dispute was also raised in between the parties before the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat.  However, the disputes between the parties have been resolved through mutual agreement as found from the record.  The cause of action of all the disputes appears to be one and same.  The OP.1 has also stated in his counter that the complainant is regularly in paying the loan dues and there is no dispute between them as of now.

7.                     It is seen that the complainant is grumbling about excess interest demanded and collected by the OP.1 which is out of agreement but it is found that the complainant by not paying the loan EMIs has violated the agreement.  However, as the parties have settled their disputes elsewhere and normalcy restored, we do not find any merit in the present dispute in hand.  In view of above facts and circumstances, we do not find 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.

(to dict.)