SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2389

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K. Prashanth Reddy – Respondent
SC/36/A/147/2021



Petitioner Advocates:M/s. Sri. Hari Bathina ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

1

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION:HYDERABAD

(ADDITIONAL BENCH)

FA. No.147/2021

AGAINST ORDERS

IN

CC. No.15/2019

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, ADILABAD

Between :-

M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

The Branch Manager,

H.No.6-2-57, Cinema Road,

Adilabad-504 001.

…..Appellant/Opposite party

And

K. Prashanth Reddy S/o. Ramchander Reddy,

Age:- 51 yrs, Occ:- Agriculture,

R/o. New Housing Board Colony,

Adilabad.

…Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant :M/s. Srihari Bathina

Counsel for the Respondent :Paper Publication filed

QUORUM: Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao - Presiding Officer-

Member- (Judicial).

&

Hon’bleSri V.V.SESHUBABU- Member ( Judicial).

THURSDAY, THE 5th DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX

*****

Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao- Presiding Officer-

Member - (Judicial).

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite party U/s.41 of the

Consumer Protection Act, praying this State Commission to set aside the

impugned order dt.28.12.2020 passed in CC. No. 15/2019 of the District

Forum, Adilabad, and consequently to allow the appeal as prayed for.

##PAGE2##

2

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

the complaint. The Appellant herein was opposite party and the Respondent

were complainant in the CC. No. 15/2019 before the District Forum, Adilabad.

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

The complainant availed vehicle loan to his car bearing AP01AE-5666 for

an amount of Rs.5,60,438/- vide loan A/c No.22206046 on 28.08.2012 from

the Opposite party payable in 60 EMI’s and the first EMI starts from

05.09.2012 and end with 05.08.2017. Since the complainant was regular in

payment of EMI’s Opposite party sanctioned Top up loan on the same car for

an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- vide loan A/c. 27806644 payable in 36 EMI’S

starts from 07.05.2014 end with 07.04.2017. Thereafter complainant was

paying the installments regularly and due to financial crisis complainant

unable to pay some installments, he surrendered his above said car to the

Opposite party in turn the Opposite party acknowledged the receipt and later

the Opposite party sold out the said car to third parties and adjusted the

amount to the loan account of complainant and also issued No Objection

Certificate addressing the RTO, Adilabad about termination of loan agreement

and asked to remove the Hypothecation of HDFC Bank Ltd., on the above said

vehicle, accordingly the loan agreement was terminated in the year 2015. The

above said two loan accounts are closed and Opposite party issued true extract

of account statements. Thereafter the complainant obtained agriculture loan in

the Opposite party bank and the complainant paying the said agriculture loan

along with interest regularly. But to the sudden surprise on 28.02.2019 the

Opposite party’s employees came to the complainant stated that there is an

overdue of Rs.1,50,000/- on car loan A/c. bearing No. 27806644 and

harassing the complainant for payment and threatened to hold the bank

account and file false case. Upon that complainant requested the Opposite

party to furnish the particulars of Alleged due amount and also for fresh

##PAGE3##

3

account statement. But the opposite party, refused, then complainant filed a

prelitigation case before the Hon’ble District Legal Service Authority, Adilabad.

Though the notices from DLSA served to the opposite parties in the said

prelitigation case they did not appear before the DLSA, as such matter was

closed. The complainant already paid the entire due amount and the opposite

party also terminated the agreement even then opposite party harassing for

huge amount. The acts of the opposite party is nothing but negligence and

deficiency in service due to which complainant suffered mentally, physically

and financially, contending so prayed to allow the complaint.

Upon receipt of notice Opposite party filed counter and contested the

case. It is stated in the counter that complainant surrendered his vehicle and

asked the Opposite party bank to sell the same and adjust the sale

proceedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top