Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The Complainant, Sri Abhijit Seal obtained one Term Loan from the OPs for a sum of Rs. 31,45,000/-.  According to the terms of the agreement executed for this purpose between the parties, the OPs were supposed to communicate any changes in respect of the rate of interest to the Complainant through letter or e-mail or SMS.  The said loan was disbursed by the OPs on 29-09-2016.  In course of repaying due EMIs, the Complainant found that all payments made by him were adjusted against interest amount while the principal sum remained static.  Being perplexed, he approached the OPs to rectify the anomaly, but in vain.  In such circumstances, he filed the instant complaint case.

It appears from the postal track reports as well as AD Card that due service of notice was effected upon all the OPs.  However, as none of them turned up to defend their case before this Commission, the case was heard ex parte.

Be that as it may, let me decide, whether the Complainant deserve any relief, as prayed for.

The bone of contention of this case revolves around the methodology being used by the OPs for fixing the repayment schedule in respect of the subject loan account. 

The Complainant wondered, as to why the OPs did not use any part of the repayable amount towards repayment of the principal sum of the said loan account.  In order to prove that the repayment schedule was not properly prepared, he furnished a copy of repayment schedule being prepared by the OPs in respect of the loan being taken by his brother, Sri Indrajit Seal.

On comparison of both the repayment schedules, I find palpable difference between the same.  Usually, part of the repaid amount is adjusted towards interest and the rest amount towards the principal sum as is being done in respect of the repayment schedule of Sri Indrajit Seal.  Surprisingly, the OPs did not follow the aforesaid conventional route while setting the repayment schedule in respect of the loan account of the Complainant.

It appears that the Complainant sent a letter to the OP No. 1 in this regard on 17-06-2017.  There is nothing to show that the OPs took any positive step to allay the apprehension of the Complainant. This is totally unacceptable.

Ideally, dealings of an organization shall always remain above board. While a serious issue was raised by the consumer, as a service provider, it was incumbent upon the OPs to address the same, but they chose to remain a fence-sitter.  It was a clear instance of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for which I have no qualms allowing this case.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The case stands allowed ex parte against the OPs with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.  The OPs shall provide accurate repayment schedule to the Complainant within 30 days from today and also pay compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/-. Non-compliance of this order within the aforesaid period shall warrant payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the entire period of default.