A financial institution correctly adjusts loan repayments according to standard banking practices, which can defeat claims of misrepresentation by borrowers if not substantiated.

1. This appeal has been preferred under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act) against order dated 17.5.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby Complaint No. 115/2018 filed by the complainant under S.12 of the Act was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated thus. The appellant had approached the respondent bank for grant of house loan during the year 2011. The respondent bank accordingly sanctioned and disbursed him housing loan to the tune of Rs.10,00,000 on 15.5.2011. This loan was to be repaid in 120 monthly installments. The appellant claims that as per repayment schedule issued by the respondent bank, EMI of this loan was Rs.10,507.88. The appellant further claims that he had been regularly paying the monthly installments. When he wanted to close the loan account, he approached the respondent bank to know about the outstanding loan amount. He was shocked to know that despite making payment of Rs.8,85,742 an amount of Rs.9,26,862 was shown outstanding in his loan account. The respondent bank adjusted the payments made by him as per their own choice and maintained wrong statement of accounts. When he sought clarifications from the respondent bank, he was informed that he had paid a sum of Rs.1,97,129.47 towards principle and a sum of Rs.6,55,012.53 towards interest. The respondent bank has intentionally manipulated the account and maintained the accounts as per their own choice by adjusting only a sum of Rs.1,97,129.47 against total payment of Rs.8,52,742 made by him. When he asked the respondent bank to rectify the accounts, they threatened to take action against him. The act and conduct of the respondent bank amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence, he has prayed for issuing directions to the respondent bank to settle the account as per repayment schedule issued to him and refund the excess amount paid by him. He has also claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation along with litigation charges of Rs.50,000.

3. The claim of the appellant has been resisted and contested by the respondent bank by filing its reply in which various preliminary objections against the maintainability of this complaint have been taken. On merits, the respondent bank has not disputed the grant of housing loan of Rs.10, 00,000 in favour of the appellant and that this loan amount was to be repaid in 120 equal monthly installments. The respondent bank has specifically denied that the EMI was fixed at Rs.10,507.88 but pleaded that the same was Rs.18,360 and in this behalf the appellant had also executed necessary loan documents. The respondent bank has also denied that the appellant had been regularly making repayment of the loan amount as per agreement. It is also denied by the respondent bank that it has intentionally manipulated the accounts as per their own choice but pleaded that the repayments made by the appellant have been correctly adjusted as per banking norms against the principle and interest. Hence, a prayer for dismissal of this complaint has been made.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder in which he controverted the pleadings of the respondent bank and reaffirmed the averments made by him in his complaint.

5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.

6. The learned District Forum below after hearing the parties and going through the records, dismissed the complaint as aforesaid.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.5.2019 passed by the learned District F