BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

F.A. No.385 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.215 OF 2015 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

The Manager, State Bank of India, (formerly State Bank of Mysore), Shamshabad Branch, Hyderabad.

…. Appellant/Opposite party And Sri. Munugala Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o. M. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.23-111, Madhuranagar, Shamshabad, R.R. District-501 218.

…Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite party: M/s. P.M.Swapna Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant: M/s. Swathi Menon P :QUORUM:

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE DR.G. RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE- MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

MONDAY, THE 16^thDAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-SIX ORDER: (HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON-JUDICIAL)

01. This appeal is filed U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, by appellant/opposite party praying this Commission to set aside the order dated 17.01.2020 of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy passed in CC No.215 of 2015 as against appellant/opposite party in the interest of justice.

02. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as complainant and opposite party as arrayed in the complaint.

03. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had issued an e-auction-cum-sale notice under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, for sale of immoveable property mortgaged to it for recovering security debts. The date of E-auction was fixed as 13.02.2015. As the complainant was in need of a house, he participated in the said e-auction and paid the EMD amount of Rs.1,46,400/- through RTGS on 11.02.2015, an amount Rs.2,22,100/- was paid on 13.02.2015 through RTGS, that as specified, the complainant had paid the balance amount of Rs.11,00,500/- within 15 days of the auction and obtained the sale certificate on 02.03.2015 from the opposite party. The opposite party had transferred the property in the name of the complainant through registered sale transaction dated 15.03.2015 that took place at concerned Joint Sub-Register-Shamshabad. That in fact the opposite party had transferred litigation by way of this transfer of property. Since it was discovered that on the same day another registration took place before the Sub-Registrar for the same property.

That the complainant had been approaching the opposite party for handing over the possession of the said property. But the opposite party had been postponing the same on one or the other pretext and finally the opposite party had admitted their mistake. In fact, the opposite party’s mortgagor Smt. Ameerpeta Sravanthi has entered into a sale-cum-GPA with Third-party with regard to the subject property and filed a case before the DRT. The said fact was well within the knowledge of opposite party but the opposite party did not inform the complainant about the same and is not contesting the said matter seriously before the DRT. Thereby causing huge financial loss, inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant. As such the complaint was filed before the District Commission.

04. The opposite party remained ex-parte as such there is no written version on their behalf, but however the opposite party had filed its evidence affidavit and documents and had participated in the proceedings before the District Commission.

05. Before the District Commission the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 and A5. One, Chenna Krishnaiah, Manager of Opposite party filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B4.

06. The District Commission allowed the complaint as under: “In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) towards mental agony, financial loss and physical trauma. The Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as costs of litigation. T