Dt. 19.11.2015
DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.02.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit – II (in short, District Forum) in CC No. 287/2012, the OPs thereof have preferred this appeal. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case.
Case of the Complainant is that he approached the OP Bank for sanction of house Loan, who sanctioned Rs.6,59,000/- on 20.3.2002 under Loan Account No. 40353087 on certain terms & conditions inter alia of repayment of the loan amount by 168 EMIs of Rs.7,909/-. In the year 2004-2005, he approached OP Bank for sanction of further loan amount, and Rs.8,47,543/- was duly sanctioned and Loan Account No. changed to 43963803 and the EMIs’ repayment also changed from Rs.7,909 to Rs.8,366. But, on 30.7.2008, due to some financial difficulties, he approached the concerned Bank to reduce the EMI from Rs.8,366/- to Rs.7,000/-, which was refused. Finally, on 11.02.2012, he sent a written representation to the OP No. 3 for regularization of the loan. Thereafter, he received a letter dated 03.8.2012 from Mr. Niloy Sarkar, Ld. Advocate for the Bank intimating him to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.8,35,250/- within seven days, in default civil and criminal proceedings against him will be initiated, to which he made a reply through his Ld. Advocate demanding justice. Accordingly, the case followed.
Case of the OP Bank is that their notice dated 03.8.2012 through Advocate calling upon the Complainant to pay the outstanding contractual dues against the loan is valid and binding on him. As the Complainant has not liquidated his outstanding dues, the Bank is entitled to recover the outstanding amount of Rs.8,84,654.21 from him. Accordingly, the baseless and motivated case be dismissed.
It is to be considered in this appeal as to whether the impugned order is required to be interfered with on factual and legal terms.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that as against the outstanding amount of Rs.10,39,878.72, it was decided to waive off the penal interest which stood at Rs. 1, 02,814.40 and document to get effect has been filed before the Ld. District Forum. But, the Ld. District Forum has wrongly mentioned Rs. 1,08,695.61 as the amount of penal interest being waived off. Thus, after such deduction, the amount payable by the Complainant became Rs.9,37,064.32 as on 05.01.2014. There is no validity in the proposition of the Ld. District Forum that on 05.01.2014 the actual amount would be Rs. 8,00,000/- and odd, and there is no justification thereto. What is the odd amount is also not specified. Otherwise there is no gross anomaly in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Appellant will be entitled to such sum of Rs. 9,37,064.32 from the Complainant as on 05.01.2014 and further sum till the loan is liquidated.
Respondent does not appear in this appeal. So, it is heard ex-parte against him.
On a consideration of the whole materials on record, it is found that the proposition as made out by the Appellant is a correct reflection of the position and fact of the case. Thus, the impugned order is slightly modified to the extent that the Complainant is to clear Rs.9,37,064.32 as stood on 05.01.20214, instead of Rs.8,00,000/-, as in the impugned order.
The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent as above.
