BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

C.C.NO.206 OF 2017 Between:

Mr. H. Suryaprakasa Rao, S/o. Late. Nagabhushanam, Aged about: 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12-10-335/2, Seethafalmandi, Secunderabad – 500061.

…..Complainant And

1. The Chief Manager, (SBH) Now (SBI), Himmatnagar Branch, Near Railway Station, Secunderabad – 500025.

2. Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Near Railway Station, Secunderabad – 500025.

3. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Madamecame Raod, Mumbai – 400021. …..Opposite parties Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. K. V. Rao & Mr.

Akella Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 : M/s. M. K. Sri Ramya QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO - PRESIDING OFFICER-

MEMBER - (JUDICIAL).

&

HON’BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NON JUDICIAL).

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ORDER: (PER HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, N-JUDICIAL)

1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant u/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 on 13.10.2017 against the Opposite Party to direct them as follows:-

(i) To direct the Opposite Party bank to return the title deeds to the Complainant, in respect of H.No.9-188, Plot NO.205, HMT Nagar, Street No.7, Nacharam, Hyderabad – 500076;

(ii) To direct the Opposite Party bank to pay compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-.

(iii) To award costs of the complaint;

(iv) To grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the case:- The specific case of the Complainant is that, he is the owner of house No.9-188, Plot No.205, HMT Nagar Colony, Street No.7, Nacharam, Hyderabad. That the Complainant had pledged the title deeds of his house with the Opposite Party as collateral security for the loan availed by M/s. Supreme Laundry Services Joint Venture Pvt Ltd.; that as per the application dated 6.12.2014, the loan was subject to certain conditions more particularly condition No.6 & 7. That the borrowers conducted their business in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the bank, of the customers, of the partners and of the end users and the borrowers mismanaged the affairs of the company, that as per the terms the Opposite Party bank was supposed to inspect the management but however the Opposite Party bank failed to inspect the management which has led to mismanagement and diversion of funds and the officers of Opposite Party bank in collusion with the borrowers had deliberately omitted to inform the Complainant . As such on 08.02.2017 the Complainant addressed a letter to the bank intimating that he is withdrawing from the collateral security and requested to release the documents; but however the Opposite Party bank failed to respond as such he has addressed another reminder dated 10.02.2017 but the Opposite Party failed to reply to the same. Hence, another letter was addressed by the Complainant on 28.03.2017 requesting the bank to comply with the letter dated 08.02.2017, the said letter was acknowledged but the Opposite Party did not choose to either reply or act upon the letter that this reckless and irresponsible omission on the part of the Opposite Party to the letters addressed by the Complainant amounts to deficiency of service.

That the Opposite Party bank in collusion with the borrowers had altered the terms and conditions of the sanction and never intimated the irregularities in the unit and the accounts. The statement of account and the statement of stock was never submitted or intimated. That the Opposite Party bank had violated the condition No.6 by not conducting the inspection. That by the letter dated 08.02.2017 the guarantee stands revoked and the Complainant stands discharged U/s.139 of Indian Contract Act. Further in view of variation of the terms and conditions of contract and collusion between the banker and borrower the surety i.e. the Complainant stands discharged U/s.133 of Indian Contract Act. That the Opposite Party bank is