The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is a retired school teacher and he took a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the O.P for making house building and as per agreement of the loan it was settled the complainant will pay total 108 monthly installments @ Rs. 4,305/-. As per agreement the O.P took every month’s installment from his salary account and first installment was taken from the month of November, 2005 and the said repayment was completed in the month of October, 2014 but after that period the O.P willfully did not give the clearance certificate to the complainant with a pretext that they will get more Rs. 45,758/- from him. On several times the complainant requested the O.P to show the balance sheet of the loan account but the O.P did not give any balance sheet of the loan account to him. On the other hand the O.P gave pressure upon him to pay the said excess amount. Thereafter, on being pressure made by the O.P the complainant compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 45,758/- to the O.P then the O.P also assured to the complainant that they will checked their ledger against and it was found that the over payment was drawn by the complainant and so the O.P will return back the said over payment. The complainant requested the O.P on several occasion to get back his over payment but the O.P did not pay any heed to it and lastly on 06/05/2019 the O.P refused to give the proper balance sheet of the loan account to the complainant or pay the said over payment.

                Hence, this case has been filed by the complainant with a prayer to direct the O.P to pay Rs. 45,758/- for his claim amount with interest and he has further prayed to direct to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and also prayed to direct the O.P to pay Rs. 54,242/- towards his litigation costs.

                The O.P has appeared before this Commission and contested the case by filing written version denying the allegations as leveled by the complainant against him. The O.P has pray for dismissal of the case.

                Both the parties have files evidence-in-chief and also filed written argument.

                We have also heard argument from both sides at length and also perused the materials as available on record.

           In this context, the following issues are necessarily come up for consideration to reach just decision of the case.

                                                 POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

           Is the complainant a consumer u/s.2 (1)(d)(i)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act ?

            Is the complaint barred by limitation?

           Has this Forum jurisdiction to try the instant case?

           Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

           To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled?

                                                           DECISION WITH REASONS

Firstly, this complainant took the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the O.P Bank for making house building loan and there was an agreement for making payment of 108 monthly installments of Rs. 4,305/- and this loan was taken in the month of June, 2005. According to the complainant the payment was completed in the month of October, 2014 but the O.P Bank did not give NOC to him. On the ground that an amount of Rs. 45,758/- is still due to him. According to this Act the complainant is the consumer of the O.P as he took loan with an agreement for repayment of loan to the O.P. Thus, the point no. 1 - disposes of in favour of complainant. Point no. 2 - the O.P has raised the point of barred by limitation. According to the O.P the NOC was issued on 23/03/2015 after making the payment of 45,758/- to the bank by this complainant but after lapse of 4 years and more this complaint has been filed this case without any cogent explanation. One petition of condonation of delay was filed along with medical certificate but the medical certificate does not state from which date the complainant was suffering. So according to the O.P it is barred by limitation in reply the Ld. Advocate of the complainant  stated that the complainant was suffering from the disease and he was treated by the doctor and the doctor gave her a medical certificate from which it reveals that he was suffering from illness  and was under the treatment of the doctor. After perusal of the documents along with the petition for condonation of delay as well as after hearing the argument of both the parties we find that after lapse of 4 years and more this complaint has been filed apparently which is barred by limitation one petition of condonation  of was filed  but it was heard ex-parte on 24/06/2019 and the delay was condoned although the said petition was not heard in presence of the O.P. It appears from the certificate filed by the doctor which was issued on 03/11/2019 by the doctor although the petition for condontion of delay was filed on 17/06/2019. From the said medical report it reveals that this complainant was under the treatment of that doctor for 2 years only that means he was under the treatment of this Dr.  Jivesh Kumar Sarkar after November, 2017 the cause of action arose on March, 2015. 2 years were lapsed by this complainant without taking any steps the explanation for condonation of delay is not satisfactory. It is not clearly explain why the complaint was not filed in between March, 2015 to November, 2017. It is fact that this petition has already been heard ex-parte which not means that delay was completely condoned; opportunity was not given to this O.P to take part of the hearing of this petition. O.P has filed several case laws reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578 AIR 2012 SC 1629 AIR 2013 SCW 6510 and others case laws of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In all the case laws it appears that delay should be explained properly if the delay is not explain properly the limitation can’t be restored here. In this case we find that the complainant did not explain properly the reason for non-filing. In this case complainant is the duty bound to explain that without he has no laches or negligence to file this case in time but here the explanation filed by the complainant is not satisfactory. All the medical certificates show that he was suffering from illness only for 2 years that is from November, 2017 to November, 2019. The cause of action arose on March, 2015 there is no such explanation why the case was not filed within the 2 years. When the complainant was not suffering from any illness so we find that the case is clearly barred by limitation as it was not done as the delay was not explain properly and satisfactorily.

                After carefully scrutiny of this case record we find that this commission has the jurisdiction to try this instant case. Not a question is according to the complainant he paid all the EMIs but no NOC was issued from the side of the O.P. On the ground that an amount of Rs. 45,758/- was still outstanding and the complainant has paid the said amount to the O.P Bank and there after the O.P Bank issued the NOC. The complainant alleged that the O.P Bank assured him to return the said amount if the excess payment is done but till date no amount was return from the side of the O.P. There is no document filed by the complainant regarding the return of excess payment as agreed by the bank. No written correspondence was made between the parties regarding this allegation except the oral evidence of this complainant. There is no document to show that the bank agreed to return the excess amount paid by the complainant. Ld. Advocate for the O.P stated that one installment of Rs. 4,305/- was outstanding and with interest and other charges. This amount was enhanced to 45,758/-. This explanation of this O.P is also not satisfactory as because interest on Rs. 4,305/- can’t be Rs. 45,758/- . The O.P Bank took the excess amount definitely as because the explanation of this O.P is not satisfactory but here in this case we can not pass any order in favour of the complainant as because this case is barred by limitation of that a part there is no prove to return the said amount as agreed by the bank. There is definitely in laches from the part of the O.P to take excess amount but this Commission can not help the complainant as the reason of state above. The complainant is not entitled to get any benefit from this case.

           Hence, for ends of justice, it is,

                                                                       ORDERED

            that the instant case be and the same is dismissed against the O.P without costs as the case is barred by limitation.

             Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.           

.

Dictated & Corrected by me