State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Kurukshetra Urban Cooperative Bank ... vs Om Parkash Son Of Ram Sarup C/O Assistant ... on 28 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1395 of 2006 Date of Institution: 02.06.2006 Date of Decision: 28.03.2012 The Kurukshetra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Kurukshetra through its Manager. Appellant (OP) Versus Om Parkash son of Ram Sarup c/o Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri J.K. Goel, Advocate for appellant. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.05.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra in complaint No.74/2004, wherein following direction was issued to the appellant-opposite party:-
we partly accept the complaint and direct Op to accept Rs.3000/- lump sum from complainant and do not raise demand more than Rs.3000/-. This amount of Rs.3000/- will be paid by complainant within 90 days failing which OP will charge interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization. Order be complied accordingly.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the respondent-complainant had borrowed a loan of Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party on 09.01.1992 which was to be repaid in 25 instalments of Rs.200/- each instalment, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, commencing from February, 1992. It was further agreed that 2% per annum additional interest on overdue amount of principal and interest in default, was to be charged. Complainant remained defaulter in making payments of the instalments. Complainant demanded the details of his loan amount upon which it revealed that there was balance loan amount of Rs.4565/- outstanding towards principal and Rs.1888/- against the interest. The interest was calculated upto 30.09.2003. Aggrieved against the calculation made by the opposite party, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum with the plea that he had already deposited Rs.9700/- against the loan account but the opposite party wrongly shown the balance due amount towards him by charging higher rate of interest.
Claim of the complainant was resisted by the opposite party in view of the agreement executed by the complainant with the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Respondent is already exparte.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the opposite party has rightly charged interest from the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement which was signed by the complainant at the time of obtaining the loan.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. From the perusal of the impugned order it is revealed that the District Consumer Forum has accepted the complaint merely on the ground that the opposite party had not intimated the One Time Settlement Scheme to the complainant. Undisputedly, One Time Settlement Scheme was initiated by Reserve Bank of India from time to time for which proper notifications were issued and the borrowers had to apply for the scheme. In the instant case the complainant never applied for adopting One Time Settlement Scheme. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, he cannot save his skin to pay the loan amount alongwith interest as per the agreement. The delay on the part of the complainant in paying the instalments, accumulated the loan amount and interest. Assumption and presumption cannot take the shape of proof without any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has failed to produce any evidence contrary to recovery of loan amount by the opposite party from the complainant. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 28.03.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member