BRANCH MANAGER, THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. & Vs. RUP LAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Mandi, dated 8.7.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.302/2009 whereby the complaint was allowed and opposite parties were directed to issue NOC of the loan amount which was settled by the bank and paid by the complainant under the plan of loan amount relaxation scheme. Opposite parties were further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/ - on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation was assessed at Rs.1500/ -. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) Facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint file are that the complaintnt, Roop Lal and Prakash Chand are sons of Kameshwar Lal and Kameshwar Lal took their GPA of the land on their behalf and raised loan from the opposite party No.1 and the opposite parties vide letter dated 29.8.2008 approached the complainant and told that his account came under the plan of loan amount relaxation scheme by which his loan account will be decreased 25% and he will have to pay only 75% of the loan amount to the bank and the complainant accepted the offer and the bank vide letter No. AMPA/14, had settled the loan amount at Rs.46,461/ - which was divided by opposite party No.1 in three instalments which were to be paid by the complainant before 31.6.2009 as per terms and conditions of the letter. Further averments in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant paid all three instalments before the 30th June, 2009. The complainant paid first intalment of Rs.15,500/ - on dated 29.9.2009, 2nd Rs.16,000/ - on dated 4.5.2009 and last instalment of Rs.15,500/ - was paid on

(3.) 6.2009. After that the complainant went to the office and requested to issue the no objection certificate regarding the aforesaid loan then opposite party No.1 denied to issue the NOC of loan number AMPA -14 and demanded Rs.5100/ - from the complainant and did not issue the NOC in favour of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice through his counsel on dated 30.6.2009. The complainant had brought on record AMPA -14 dated 4.5.2009 receipt of paid amount. Letter dated 29.8.2009 SARDB/08 -216, legal notice and postal receipt, GPA annexure A. Due to act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant was mentally tortured and harassed after paying the whole amount. Hence, deficiency of service/unfair trade practice was alleged on the part of the opposite parties. In this background, present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against the opposite parties wherein compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/ - had been claimed for mental torture and agony and Rs.10,000/ - had been claimed as litigation expenses and a prayer was also made to the effect that opposite party be directed to issue NOC in favour of the complainant. 3.This complaint was resisted and contested by the opposite parties and it was submitted that the complainant comes under the plan of loan amount relaxation and total loan amount after giving relaxation was settled at Rs.46,461/ - but the interest has not been included in the above stated amount and interest has been calculated by the bank on half yearly and yearly basis i.e. 30thSeptember and 31st March each year. The figures were taen into account as per position of interest as on 30.9.2008 and the guidelines for debit under debt relief scheme made it clear that the bank will charge interest upto 28th February 2008 which was not included in Rs.46,461/ - and photocopy of para 8(1) of the scheme submitted in the court. Hence the complainants are liable to pay the genuine interest w.e.f. 1.10.2007 to 29.2.2008. Hence, it was submitted by the opposite parties that the bank dues are still payable by the complainant, hence question of issuance of NOC does not arise.