BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.No.268 OF 2023 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.2/2022 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY Between:

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Patancheru Branch, Susheeram Complex 12-1, NH.No.9, Srinagar Colony, Patancheru.

……..Appellant/Opp.Party No.1 And:

1. Smt.Bolla Pushpa Latha, W/o.Bolla Mahesh, Aged: 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.5-73/138, Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District – 502032.

2. Madapati Rama Devi, C/o.Madapati Susheela, Aged: 41 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, Ganesh Plaza-3, Seetharamapuram Colony, Near Vedika Function Hall, Patancheru Town & Mandal, Sangareddy District – 502319.

………Respondents/Complainants 3. SBI Life Insurance Co.Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Miyapur, Hyderabad – 500050.

………Respondent/Opp.Party No.2 Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 : M/s.B.Pavan Kumar Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants : M/s.Ch.Baswaraj Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party No.2: M/s. Srinivas Karra QUORUM :

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

HON’BLE SRI. K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT) 1. This appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party praying this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission, Medak at Sangareddy District dated 15.02.2023 passed in CC.No.2 of 2022 and the complaint as against Opposite Party No.1 may be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant is the Opposite Party No.1, the Respondents 1 & 2 are the Complainants and Respondent No.3 is the Opposite Party No.2 in CC.No.2/2022.

3. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

The Complainant’s mother by name Susheela Ramulu, being a Government employee was holding Bank A/c.No.37893562594 in the Opposite Party Bank. During her lifetime, she availed housing loan from the Opposite Party Bank and was regularly paying the installments. As on the date of death of the Complainant’s mother, she was having outstanding amount of Rs.15,29,252/- dated 30.09.2021 as per the Opposite Party Bank Statement. The said Susheela Ramulu died on 04.09.2021 leaving behind Complainants as her sole legal heirs.

4. It is submitted that the Complainants’ mother obtained insurance policy on the loan amount as per the advice of the Opposite Party Bank officials. A sum of Rs.1,92,174/- was deducted from the loan account of the Complainants’ mother at the time of obtaining the loan. After the death of the policy holder, the Opposite Party Bank demanded Complainant No.2 to pay the remaining installments to the housing loan account of Complainants’ mother. The policy was obtained in order to avoid future liability on the legal heirs of Smt.Susheela Ramulu. As such, future liability shall not be thrown on Complainants in view of the insurance policy on the said housing loan amount.

5. It is further stated that the loan outstanding amount in the housing loan account of Complainants’ mother is to be set off in view of the insurance policy obtained by her. Denying the insurance policy by the Opposite Party Bank and its officials is nothing but deficiency of service. The Opposite Party Bank officials visited the Complainants’ house and demanded for payment of outstanding amount. Therefore, the Complainants issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 14.12.2021 with a demand to settle the insurance benefits their mother and to close the loan account. The Opposite Party is making hectic efforts to auction the house and if they succeed in their attempt, the Complainants will be put to hardship. Hence, the complaint as prayed for.

6. The Opposite Party No.1 filed their written version stating that they repudiated their claim of waiving the loan amount in the account of Smt.Susheela Ramulu