##PAGE1##

1

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION:HYDERABAD

(ADDITIONAL BENCH)

FA. No.207/2021 AGAINST ORDERS

IN CC. No.19/2019

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY

Between :-

1.State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Opposite Vanasthalipuram Police Station Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad-500 070.

…..Appellant/Opposite party.

And

Smt. S.R. Sulochana Rani W/o. Sri. B. Krishna

Aged about 38 years, Occ:- Private Employee R/o. H.No.2-29, Nadergul Village,

Balapur Mandal, R.R. District

…Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant :M/s. B. Pavan Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. M/s. KRR Associates

QUORUM: Hon’ble Sri K.RangaRao - Presiding Officer-

Member- (Judicial).

&

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

WEDNESDAY, THE 25^thDAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX

*****

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

Member - (Judicial).

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/opposite party U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 praying this State Commission to set aside the impugned order dt.10.02.2021 passed in CC. No. 19/2019 of the District

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

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. 19/2019 before the District Forum, Ranga

Reddy.

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

The Complainant purchased the Maruti Swift Dzire VDI (O) BS IV

from Varun Motors Pvt Ltd on 29.08.2016 with the financial assistance of Opposite Party Bank who granted loan of Rs.7,12,617/- vide loan A/c No.36042655929 and the same was registered in the name of complainant vide Regn.No.TS08EY 0012. From the date of availing the loan, the complainant has been paying the monthly EMIs @ Rs.14,753/- on 10th of every calendar month, with the duration of 60 months through ECS transaction. The first EMI started in the month of September, 2016 but in that month the Opposite Party Bank did not recover the said amount of Rs.14,753/- even though the complainant kept the said amount in the Bank but the Opposite Party itself did not receive the said amount and the subsequent EMIs from October 2016 to till date the complainant cleared the entire EMIs to the Opposite Party Bank

without any default.

It is submitted that when the Opposite Party Bank demanded the

complainant to pay the first month EMI amount, the complainant sent the same through RTGS on 03.05.2017, but after lapse of six months, the complainant came to know that the said RTGS was returned without crediting the loan account of the complainant. The bank officials of Opposite Party calling the complainant by phone and threatening the complainant to pay the first EMI amount of Rs.14,753/- along with charges comes to Rs.37,000/- and also threatening to handover the vehicle from the custody of the complainant. Infact the complainant is paying the loan EMIs to the Opposite Party Bank

3

regularly till date without fail., The Opposite Party further demanded that the complainant has to pay the late payment charges as the EMI payment date is 29th of every month and the Opposite Party deducting the amounts on 10th of every month as such they are collecting the late payment. The Opposite Party making threatening calls to the complainant and coming to the house of the complainant threatening to seize the vehicle of the complainant illegally and unlawfully. When the complainant requested the Opposite Party Bank to give loan statement for vehicle, the Opposite Party refused to give the same. Hence the complainant approached this Commission for redressal. Hence this

complaint.

4. The Opposite Party filed written version and stated that the allegations made in the complaint are invented for wrongful gain, hence may be dismissed with costs. It is true that the complainant took loan from the Opposite Party for purchase of Swift Dezire VDI (O) BS IV of Rs.7,00,00