Heard, the learned counsel for both the sides.

2.              This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.       

3.              The case of the complainant, in brief is that he had incurred a loan for an amount of Rs.85,05,000/- from OP No.1 to construct a house. It is alleged inter-alia that the OP has paid the loan amount as per the agreement executed between the parties.  It is alleged that there was agreement to make the payment of the loan with interest @ 9.25 % but later on they demanded 12.25% interest, the complainant they gave second thought on the further continuance of such loan and wanted to fore closure of the loan amount but the fore closure charges was demanded by the OP. Finding all such deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed the complaint.

4.           The OP filed written version stating that the complainant had agreed to take the loan amount with option to pay back the loan dues with floating interest. There is also agreement for collection of the fore closure charges. Accordingly they have demanded the payment of loan amount and complainant has paid it. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.            After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum dismissed the complaint.

6.            Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the case of the complainant with proper perspectives. According to him the agreement was one-sided and the complainant has no scope to know the contents of the agreement. He further submitted that the fore closure charges is not the part of the agreement but the OP demanded same and accordingly received from the complainant. Therefore, learned District Forum passed the order without following the law and facts and he submits to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal and consequently the complainant.  

7.          Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that with full knowledge of the complainant the agreement was executed between the parties and as per the agreement the complainant agreed to pay the fore closure charges with interest and accordingly it was charged and the complainant has paid it. It is further submitted that complainant also paid the entire loan and with issue of NOC to him and availed loan from other bank. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the case. Apart from this in 2007 the contract has been concluded on payment of entire loan amount and NOC was issued to the complainant but the case was filed before the Consumer Forum in 2010 which is beyond the period of limitation.

8.           Considered the submission of respective parties,   perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.          It is admitted fact that the complainant had incurred loan from OP and there is agreement executed between the parties. We have gone through the entire agreement. It appears from the Schedule ‘B’ or agreement that complainant obtained to pay loan with floating charge of interest. Not only this but also as per clause 2.7 of the agreement, the fore closure charges   is payable if the complainant agreed to pay the loan in advance. Moreover, when the NOC has been already granted we agree with the view of the learned counsel for the respondent that the contract has been concluded. In such circumstances   no further cause of action lies. It is true that the consumer can raise issue if    loan was received without his knowledge even if even the consumer contract is concluded. But in the instant case with the full knowledge of the complainant the document of agreement has been executed and the NOC has been issued to the complainant by OP.  As per the materials available on record, the complainant has already availed loan from other bank. It is not the case of the consumer that he is ignorant or he has been biased by the OP-Bank.

10.         Not only this but also the cause of action arose in 2007 but the matter was raised in 2010 which is barred by limitation as per Section-24-A of the C.P. Act, 2019. We can only conclude by saying that the impugned order is elaborative and meticulous. We do not want to interfere with the impugned order.

               Hence, the impugned order is confirmed. Appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

             Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet  or Website of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission. 

              DFR be sent back forthwith.