JUDGMENT :

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. This civil revisional application is directed against an order dated February 21, 2019, whereby the petitioner’s Revision Petition No. 1609 of 2016 filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CPA) was dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short NCDRC).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner obtained two loans of Rs. 60,000/- each from the respondent bank. As security, he had mortgaged two LIC policies with the bank. As per the terms of the loan agreement, he was required to deposit the EMIs regularly, which he failed to do since 2009.

3. The petitioner says that when he tried to deposit the premium in connection with the two LIC policies in November, 2012, he came to know that those policies had been surrendered by the respondent bank and the value thereof was remitted to the bank by LIC.

4. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Forum at Port Blair, against the respondent bank. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,74,786/- and interest thereon for the alleged loss that he had suffered by reason of surrender of the two LIC policies by the bank. He contended that no notice of demand was served on him by the bank. No prior intimation was given to him that the LIC policies would be surrendered on account of his default in payment of EMIs.

5. By an order dated April 29, 2015, the Consumer Disputes Forum held as follows:-

“It has been admitted by the complainant that he did not pay any amount of E.M.I since 2009. It is expected that the complainant being an educated and prudent person had the knowledge as to what steps the bank might have taken in case the payment of the amount of the E.M.I.s of his loan account remaining unpaid for long. There is no evidence at all to show that the Complainant had approached the bank when he could not pay the amount of instalment for a substantial period.

It must have been very well within his knowledge that the bank would have surrendered his two LIC policies kept mortgaged against his loan if the payment of E.M.I.s of the loan is not made for long, and this would bring immense financial loss for him, the anxiety of which is found to have been largely expressed by him in the petition of complaint.

As the complainant did not pay the said loan or the amount of the E.M.I. of said loan and kept it pending over the years. In such circumstances, we don’t find anything against the act of the bank in realizing the amount of loan by way o surrendering the two LIC policies which had been kept mortgaged against the said loan. And the said act of the bank cannot be said to have amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.”

6. Accordingly, the District Forum issued the following directions:

“ That the instant case is allowed in part on contest. The Complainant is entitled to get interest on Rs. 38,652/- being the excess amount after realization of O.P.’s claim which had been kept idle in the loan account.

The O.P. bank is directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount for the period from 19/10/2011 to 24/11/2012 within 30 days, from this day, in default, the Complainant can realize the said amount in accordance with law.”

7. The petitioner challenged the said order before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short the State Commission), Port Blair by filing Appeal No. 05/2015. By an order dated March 16, 2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeal, observing as follows:-

“ There is specific evidence of record to show that the appellant has not repaid the loan not even a single furthing of the loan. The bank proceeded for the recovery of the loan and gave a demand notice to the appellant vide its reference no. UBI/JGT/ADV/03/11 dated 04/08/2011. There is evidence on record which is also not disputed that the appellant is a Lecturer of Dr.B.R. Ambedkar, Govt. Polytechnic, Port Blair. The notice was addressed to the appellant in that address. Mu