This appeal is directed against the final order dated 07.11.2019 in CC No. 10. S. 2019 of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that one Mr. S. Basunia registered a Consumer Complaint on 30.09.2019 before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri to the score that on May 2015 he had taken a home loan of Rs. 15 Lakh from LIC Housing and Finance Siliguri Branch and the rate of interest was 9.9% P.A. for the first two years and thereafter the rate of interest would be available as per market situation. The EMI was fixed at Rs. 14,396/- per month. Said loan transaction was debited through SBI account Bearing No. 30759977739 and the EMI was deducted through ECS. On May 2017 the complainant was not at his home and for that reason he could not deduct the EMI for the month of May 2017 and June 2017. He was asked to pay a fine for not deducting the EMI on May 2017 in due time. The complainant denies to pay the fine as the complainant had enough balance in his account and the LIC Authority had opportunity to have deduction of the said amount from the loan account and asked them to deduct the EMI from his bank account through ECS process. The further case of the complainant is that the Opposite Party No. 1 subsequently started to deduct the interest at the rate of 11.5% after the loan of two years and it was not communicated to the complainant. While, the complainant asked the O.P. No. 1 as to why more amount was deducted for his loan amount then it was replied that due to non-paid amount fine for the month of June 2017 the excess money was deducted from the loan account. The initial stage the plot charge was realized from the complainant Rs. 1,180/- but subsequently the O.P. No. 1 has started to realize Rs. 1,180/- from the complainant without giving notice to the complainant. Subsequently, the EMI amount was increased with contention the loan tenure was reduced to 18 months from initial agreement of 20 years and in this way the Opposite Party No. 1 has recovered excess money from the complainant without any excuse and harass the complainant repeatedly while he asked the O.P. No. 1 as to why excess money was deducted from him he was not answered. So, he claimed compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2. As the O.P. No. 2 the SBI where the loan amount was lying also had fault to go on reduction of increasing amount from the account of the complainant and for that reason both O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 was implicated in this case for mental harassment, agony etc. The instant Consumer Complaint was admitted in due course. The notice was issued upon O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. O.P. No. 1 did not contest the case in spite of receiving notice. The O.P. No. 2 entered appearance before the Ld. Forum through representative but subsequently O.P. NO. 2 also did not contest the case by filing W.V. Accordingly, the case was placed for Ex-parte hearing. The Ld. Forum heard the case Ex-parte and came into a conclusion that the tenure of the loan was fixed for 18 years th