Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

of Telangana, Eruvaka Building,Khairathabad at Hyderabad FA NO.559 OF 2019 AGAINSTC c NO.13 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICTF ORUM,M AHABUBNAGAR Between:

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Amrabad branch, Nagarkurnool district.

.Appellant/Opposite party And Miryala Rukmini W/o Subhash, aged 58 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.1-31,Achampet village and mandal, Mahabubnagar district.

...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant Sri Pearl Law Associates Counsel for the Respondent Served with notice CORAM *****

Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal . President Smt Meena Ramanathan Member and Sri K.Ranga Rao Member Wednesday, the Twenty First day of September Two Thousand Twenty Two Oral Order:

***

This is an appeal preferred by the Opposite party aggrieved by the orders dated 08.08.2019 passed by the District Forum, Mahabubnagar in CC No.13/2017 in allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite party to return the original title deed or certified copies of the same may be obtained and handed over to the Complainant and to pay a reasonable compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-, granting time of one month for compliance.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)

it is the case of Complainant that she obtained home loan in a Sum OI Rs.3,00,000/-from the Opposite party vide account No. 1 1493635867 Dy depositing the title deeds of immovable property bearing H.No.1-19 new No.1-31) situated at Achampet villagea nd mandal, Mahabubnagar district as security.

Alter repayment of loan instalments, Complainant approached the Opposite party secking return of title deeds but they are hot responding for the samc. She got issucd a noticc dated 01.06.2016 and 15.07.2016 but the same evoked no response. Hence, complaining deficiency ^of service, filed the prescnt complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite party to return the original title deed bearing No.1750/1984 and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ as damages and to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

Opposite party filed its written version admitting sanction of home loan to the Complainant but denied as to deposit of any title decds as scCunty. hence, question of rcturning the original documents does not arise Hencc, there is no deficiency of service on their part and accordngly prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5 Dunng ^the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove ^her case, the Complainantfilcd her affidavit cvidencc as PW1 and got marked the documents Ex.A1 to A9 On behalf of Opposite party.

one P.Sravan Kumar, its Branch Manager filed his affidavit evidence as RW1 The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No. 13 of 2017, by orders dated

08.08.2019, as stated, at paragraphN o.1 , supra.

71 Aggrieved by the said orders, ^the Appellant preferred ^the present appeal contending that the forum below failed to consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and based its conclusions in casual manner. lt failed to consider the fact that the loan obtained was for renovation of house and the quantum of amount is only Rs.3,00,000/- which does not warrant ereation of mortgage charge over the house property. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders impugned.

8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?

9) The grievance of the Respondent/Complainant in the consumer complaint is that even though she has cleared the housing loan, the Appellant bank is not returning the original title deeds which have been deposited by her with the bank. On the other hand, the contention of the Appellant/Opposite party is that the Respondent/Complainant has not deposited