BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD. F.A. No.621 OF 2018 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.37 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, MAHABUBNAGAR Between Mrs. C. Nirmala, W/o. C. Ramagopal, Aged about: 58 years, Occ: Housewife, Indian.

Presently R/o. H.No.10-113/2, Ex-Serviceman Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

…. Appellant/Complainant And The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bijinapally Branch, Bijinapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

…Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. K. Visweswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party : M/s. Ch. Govardhan Rao QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER-(J), &

HON’BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE, MEMBER (N-J).

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ******

Order : (Per Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial)

1. This appeal is filed u/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by way of order dt.25.10.2018 passed in C.C.No.37/2017, by District Consumer commission, Mahabubnagar.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as Complainant and Opposite Party as arrayed in the original complaint.

The case of the Complainant is that she had availed the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Opposite Party bank on 27.07.2002 by mortgaging her plot as security for the said loan. That initially she had paid few instalments but due to some financial constrains she could not pay the remaining instalments. Thereafter the Opposite Party had auctioned the plot on 15.11.2010 without giving any prior intimation or notice to the Complainant. Subsequently, when she got to know that the plot was auctioned she has visited the Opposite Party bank and sought for details, but however as the Opposite Party bank failed to furnish the details, as such she has sought the same by filing RTI applications. After receiving the reply to the RTI application she came to know that her plot was sold in auction for a sum of Rs.10,01,111/- and the Opposite Party had not given any calculations for Rs.10,01,111/- that were adjusted towards the loan amount. Again the Complainant has made another RTI application, upon which the Opposite Party had furnished the calculations but, however did not furnish any details as to how the interest was calculated, the amount incurred for paper publications and the amount paid to the auction agent. That this act of not furnishing any details of the calculations of interest & proof of expenditure incurred for paper publication and payment to agent amounts to deficiency of service.

Further the Opposite Party had conducted the auction on

15.11.2010 and after adjusting the amount towards the loan account had given a cheque for Rs.4,10,346/- to the Complainant in the year 2015. That this act of retaining the excess amount from the auction from 2010 till 2015 amounts to deficiency of service as such the Complainant is entitled for the interest on the said amount and the said interest comes to Rs.2,72,020/-. Hence, the complaint was filed seeking the interest amount along with compensation and a direction to the Opposite Party to submit the details of the entire sale proceedings such as calculation of interest, expenses incurred and other details.

3. The Opposite Party filed their written version while admitting that the Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by mortgaging her property, but had opposed the complaint on the ground that the Complainant was a defaulter as such the Opposite Party had filed a suit O.S. No.25/2005 on the file Senior Civil Judge, Nagar Kurnool. The said suit was not contested by the Complainant as such a decree was passed on 27.07.2006. Subsequently, the Opposite Party had initiated proceedings under SARFAESI ACT and by following the due process of law had issued paper publication in Eenadu Telugu daily and Indian Express newspaper and conducted the auction, in the auctio