BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 66 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.280/2015 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB.NAGAR Between:

1. State Bank of India, (Formerly State Bank of Hyderabad), Corporate Office, Rep. by its General Manager, Add : 4th Floor, Premises Department Hibank Towers, Opposite Petrol Bunk, Near Chermas, Gunfoundry-Abids, Hyderabad-500 001.

2. State Bank of India, (Formerly State Bank of Hyderabad), Rep. by its Manager, Thumkunta Branch, Shemeerpet Mandal, R.R.Dist. Telangana -500 078.

………..Appellants/ Opposite Parties And:

Sri Thota Balvanth Reddy, S/o T.Chandra Reddy, Age : 58 years, Occ .:Business, R/o H.No.10-89/3, Temple Alwal, Secunderabad.

……..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Parties : Party-in-Person Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. D. Madhava Rao QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

MONDAY, THE 27t h DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The opposite parties filed the appeal u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2018 passed in CC No.280/2015 by the DCDRC, Ranga Reddy, wherein the opposite parties were directed to return original sale deed vide document No.7902/1991 and also to return the revenue title deed, bearing No.289145 and Pattadar Pass Book No.53076 within 03 months and in the meanwhile to obtain certified documents from SRO & MRO with clear endorsement thereon, that the originals were misplaced by SBI and also to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for causing inconvenience and Rs.5,000/- costs within 30 days, failing which 18% interest shall be levied on the amount awarded; that the opposite parties were further directed to make a publication in leading newspaper like “The Hindu” and “Eenadu” about missing of the original title deeds at their costs with an undertaking that if the complainant suffers any loss in the future, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the same and also directed the opposite parties to lodge FIR with concerned Police Station.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and approached the opposite party No.1 for a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- and deposited the title deeds towards security by way of equitable mortgage on 27.03.2007; that subsequently, closed the loan on 30.03.2011; that the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 for the return of original title deed bearing No.7902/1991 besides Revenue title deed No.289145 and pattadar Pass Book No.53076 relating to the land to an extent of Ac.5-30gts., in Sy.No.415/part situated at Pudoor Mandal, Medchal RR District; that at first, the opposite party requested for time of 15 days and thereafter informed that the documents were missing and would be returned after tracing the same; that the value of the property is Rs.1.50 crores in the open market and as per the Government rate, it is Rs.68,900/-; that on 07.06.2014, the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite parties regarding the status of documents, for which they expressed their regrets for the inconvenience caused and promised to return whenever, they were found; hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are that the opposite parties are searching for the missed documents but, so far in vain; that the allegations made against the opposite parties are baseless and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same; that the opposite parties addressed letters to MRO and SRO for copies of the documents and as an when they were received will be handed over to the complainant.

With this, requested for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A8. Mr.M.C.Desoza, the Chief Manager of SBI, Tumukunta Branch, filed evidence af