Heard learned counsel for both parties.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that on being approached by the complainant, OP No.1 has sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,40,000/- to purchase Tata Indica car on the condition to repay the same on 34 instalments to be commenced   on 5.10.2002 and to be ended on 4.5.2005. The complainant alleged inter alia that after the last instalment paid on 31.12.2005, No due Certificate was not issued by the OPs.  Complainant asked OP No.1 several times but NOC was not issued. Suddenly, in 2011, the complainant received a notice from the District Legal Service Authority, Sambalpur where OPs have claimed Rs. 1,23,078/- towards loan dues as on 30.12.2010. Complainant challenged the outstanding loan amount. As no  relief was received, he filed the complaint on the ground that he has sustained mental agony and harassment after getting notice from the District Legal Service Authority, Sambalpur although he has cleared the entire loan amount.

4.      OPs filed written version challenging the maintainability of the complaint before the learned District Forum. Further, they alleged that there is no cause of action to file the complaint and the complainant has suppressed the material facts. Further, it is stated by the OPs that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to  entertain the case. They admitted that they have filed the case before the District Legal Service Authority to recover the loan amount. They have no deficiency of service on their part.

5.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            Taking into consideration the facts and  circumstances discussed above, we allow the case of the complainant against the OPs on contest and hold the OPs jointly and severally liable for the suffering of the complainant and it is ordered that:

OPs are directed to issue ‘No dues certificate to the complainant against the loan, pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) towards compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss along with further Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) towards litigation expenses within a period of one month from the date of order, failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @9% (Nine per cent) per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has erred in law by allowing the complaint without going through the written version  properly. According to him, the complainant has not cleared the entire loan amount for which they have taken the help  of the District Legal Service Authority, Sambalpur to recover the amount. He further submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by directing to issue NOC although there is no prayer in the complaint for direction to issue NOC. When there is outstanding loan of Rs.1,23,078/-, NOC was not issued. Learned District Forum ought to have understood this aspect while passing the impugned order.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not following the evidence of the complainant and imposed compensation and cost. There is no iota of evidence to show that the complainant suffered from mental agony and harassment after receiving notice from the District Legal Service Authority, Sambalpur. Therefore, the imposition of compensation and cost is equally illegal. So he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant has already paid the entire loan amount. It is the grievance of the complainant that as he has already paid the entire loan amount and there is no outstanding but surprisingly, after five years OP demanded further loan amount of Rs.1,23.078/- which is also barred by limitation. He submits that as the OPs claimed time barred debt in spite of clearing entire loan amount, the complainant has undergone mental agony and harassment. Therefore, he filed the present complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In short, he supported the impugned roder of the learned District Forum.

9.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for  respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    It is well settled in law that the complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

11.    It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from the OPs to purchase an Indica car. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has paid the loan amount as per the statement of account produced before the learned District Forum. It appears that the said amount has been paid regularly as on 31.12.2005. Of course, there are certain instalments either less paid or over paid. But there is no any notice issued by the OPs after 31.12.2005 to pay any arrear amount except the notice issued through the District Legal Service Authority, Sambalpur in 2010. OPs have not filed any document to justify the outstanding of Rs.1,23,078/- except filing written version where there is no specific denial of the averments of the complainant. When there is no specific denial to the allegation of the complainant and complainant alleged that he has paid the entire loan rightly, the learned District Forum has held that there is no outstanding against the complainant.

12.    Apart from this, the issue of notice after five years through the District Legal Service Authority speaks that the OPs have tried to revive the time barred loan if any by utilizing the Lok Adalat machinery which is not at the interest of the parties. It should be remembered that the Lok Adalat is meant for settlement of dispute between the parties on consideration or amicable settlement. The dispute must be legal dispute. Therefore, the dispute which is barred by limitation should not be brought to the Lok Adalat. Thus, attempt to settle any time barred debt through Lok Adalat is definitely a chance for revival of the time barred debt which is non-est.  When if there is  no outstanding as recorded by the learned District Forum and as per the discussion made above, the question of claiming further time barred amount through notice of Lok Adalat is not only called  deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Therefore, this Commission do not want to interfere with the impugned order.

13.    Apart from this, there is no prayer in the complaint petition but there is a prayer that court can pass any other order as deemed fit and proper. Unless the NOC is issued, the OPs may resort to any other forum to ask the complainant to pay certain amount which is not outstanding. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order to issue NOC. While affirming the impugned order, this Commission is of the view that NOC should be issued by the OPs to the complainant within 45 days from today. That apart,  impugned order for payment of compensation and cost are definitely  in higher side in proportionate to the harassment and mental agony as suffered by complainant. This Commission, therefore, modify the impugned order directing the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. With such modification of the impugned order, the appeal is allowed in part. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.