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
##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