Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member, J.
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.
4. Brief resume of evidence led by the parties in the present case in nutshell is that the complainant in support of its case has filed affidavit of Kameshwar Lal, GPA and placed reliance upon number of documents, viz., copy of the notice No.ARDP/Recovery.2010-854, dated 31.1.2010 issued to Sh. Parkash Chand, copy of letter dated 29.8.2008 addressed to Sh. Rup Lal/Prakash sons of Sh. Kameshwar Lal by the Branch Manager of the Bank, copy of notice dated 30.6.2009 addressed to the Manager of the Bank by the complainant, copy of letter, dated 2.7.2009 addressed to the Counsel for the complainant by the Branch Manager of the Company.
5. Opposite parties in support of its case has filed affidavit of Shri Om Parkash Sharma, Branch Manager of the bank, copy of the agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, 2008, and copy of the extract of loan register.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the case minutely.
7. We have only hear learned Counsel for the opposite parties and had not an opportunity of hearing learned Counsel for the appellant since no one appeared on behalf of the appellants on the date of hearing.
8. We have perused the grounds of appeal submitted by the appellants wherein the main point which had been raised is to the effect that the order of the Forum below is not legally sustainable since the complainant has not paid the due interest after 1.10.2007 and upto 28.2.2008 which was not the part of three instalments though the said amount was not calculated in the eligible amount, yet the same was due as interest till 28.2.2008 and the said interest was in addition to 75% of the eligible amount of settlement and liable to be charged from the complainant as per clause 8.1 of DW/DR Scheme, 2008 and the Forum below had not properly read and understood the document tendered in evidence and the scheme of the Government, as such order of the Forum below is not legally sustainable.
9. Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, learned Counsel for the respondents had supported the order of the Forum below. In the present case, the stand of the appellants in the reply was to the effect that as per para 8.1 of the Scheme, it is very clear that the bank will charge interest upto 29.2.2008 whereas the bank has charged/considered the interest in the initial detail of amount upto 30.9.2007. As such, complainants are liable to pay genuine interest with effect from 1.10.2007 to 29.2.2008. Hence, question of issuance of NOC does not arise in the present case. This plea which was taken by the appellants in their reply had not at all been touched/considered by the Forum below while allowing the present complaint and the finding of the Forum below is only based upon para 8.1 of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and the Forum below had wrongly concluded without giving any reasons that âwe have no hesitation to conclude that the complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 shall waive the interest on the loan amount and issue NOC about the bank loan and it is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite partiesâ. In this case the opposite parties were also wrongly directed to pay Rs.2,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and Rs.1500/- as cost of litigation since even from the perusal of para-8.1 of the scheme ibid, this fact is clear that the lending institution shall not charge any interest on eligible amount for any period after 29.2.2008 but since in this case specific plea of the bank was to the effect that the bank had not charged any interest with effect from 1.10.2007 to 29.10.2007 inadvertantly while settling the case of the complainant for Rs.46,461/- and even in the reply to the notice, dated 2.7.2009 which was sent to Shri R.K. Kaundal, Advocate in reply to the notice sent by the complainant, it is clearly mentioned that as per para 8.1 of the DW and DR Scheme, 2008, bank will charge interest upto 29.2.2008 whereas the bank has charged/considered the interest on the initial detail of eligible amount upto 30.9.2007. As such, this fact was not looked into by the Forum below and no finding on this aspect was given.
10. Hence, the complaint which was allowed by the Forum below is based on no supporting reasons and the provisions of Rule 8.1 of the Scheme ibid appears to have been mis-interpreted and as such we are of the considered view that the order of the Forum below is not legally sustainable and it deserves to be set aside since the complaint had been allowed without giving any reasons in support of allowing the complaint except placing reliance upon Rule 8.1 of the aforesaid scheme. As such, we remand this case to the Forum below for taking into consideration the aforesaid specific plea of the bank to the effect that the complainant had not paid due interest after 1.10.2007 upto 28.2.2008, as interest is to be calculated uptil 28.2.2008 which as per plea of the bank was not included in the settled amount of Rs.46,461/-. Hence, Forum below is directed to take into consideration the aforesaid plea of the appellant-bank specifically taken in its reply and thereafter to give a specific finding to the effect whether the interest with effect from 1.10.2007 to 28.2.2008 is due from the complainants and they were justified in withholding the issuance of NOC without being influenced by the earlier decision given in this case and the observations made by this Commission and to decide the case afresh after hearing the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 4.11.2011 since none appeared on behalf of appellants as such Fora below to issue notice to the appellants for the said date.
11. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, order of the Forum below, dated 8.7.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.302/2009 is set aside and case is remanded to the Forum below and to decide the case as afresh after taking into consideration the specific plea of the appellants taken in the case as stated above. Forum below is further directed to make efforts to expeditiously decide this case. No order as to costs.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.