BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.175 OF 2018 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.480/2015, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between:

Mekala Priscilla, W/o Kolikapogu Swamy, Aged : 45 years, Occ.: Staff Nurse, R.F.W.C.

R/o Flat No.401, Amrit Apartments, T.L.Kapadia Lane, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082.

…...Appellant/ Complainant And:

1. M/s State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre III, H.No.3-6-263, 264, 2nd Floor, CCPL Sterling Building, Himayatnagar Main Road, Hyderabad -500 029, Rep. by its Asst. General Manager.

2. M/s State Bank of India, Station Ganapur Branch, Warangal Dist.-506144, Rep. by its Branch Manager.

……..Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. P. Laxman Goud Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties :

M/s. Sri Hari Prasad Podilla F.A.No.191 OF 2018 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.480/2015, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between:

1. M/s State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre III, # H.No.3-6-263 & 264, 2nd Floor, CCPL Sterling Building, Himayatnagar Main Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager.

2. M/s State Bank of India, Station Ganapur Branch, Warangal District-506144, Rep. by its Branch Manager.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties And:

Mekala Priscilla, W/o Kolikapogu Swamy, Aged : 47 years, Occ.: Staff Nurse, R.F.W.C.

R/o Flat No.401, Amrit Apartments, T.L.Kapadia Lane, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082.

……..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties : M/s. Sri Hari Prasad Podilla Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant:

M/s. P. Laxman Goud.

QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL TUESDAY, THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE *******

Order : (HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT)

1. These are the appeals filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.04.2018 of the District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad made in CC.No.480/2015. The Complainant filed FA.No.175/2018 and the Opposite Parties filed FA.No.191/2018. As both these appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Complainant a Staff Nurse and resident of Somajiguda, Hyderabad, availed a car loan for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- vide loan Account No.33017417658 under loan cum hypothecation agreement. Instructions were given by her to debit a sum of Rs.7,200/- per month from her SB Account with opposite party No.2. She claims to have paid the instalments regularly till September 2014 and thereafter, she was unwell and was not attending to work regularly.

4. On 06.02.2015, it is her grievance that the opposite party- without any notice came to her residence along with recovery agents and forcibly took away the vehicle/car. The opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.3,99,262/- together with interest as the complainant’s account was now treated as NPA and therefore, the car was seized and auctioned for recovery of balance due. She claims that she never received any notices said to have been sent to her office address and she requested the opposite party to give her time to clear the dues and regularize her loan account.

Despite her repeated requests and approaching the Ombudsman, there has been no response forthcoming and the present complaint is filed for redressal of her grievance.

5. The Opposite Parties filed their written version challenging that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints under the Securitization Act. Admittedly, this opposite party sanctioned a car loan of Rs.4.20 lakhs to the complainant. On 24.05.2013 the complainant was required to pay EMI of Rs.7,200/- per month for 84 months. The same was agreed to be recovered from the complainant’s Salary Account maintained with opposite party No.2.

They claim that the complainant