BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 326 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.165 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY

Between

Smt Pitta Sathyamma W/o M.Jayaraj
aged 55 yrs, Occ: Pensioner
R/o H.No.13, Sita Homes, Badangpet
R.R.District, Hyderabad-58

                                                        Appellant/complainant

         A N D

1.   The State Bank of India
PNB Dilsukhnagar Branch, GBR
Tower, D.No.242, Chaitanyapuri,
R.R.District, Hyderabad-60
rep. by its Chief Manager

2.   The State Bank of India
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch(SARB)
2^nd Floor, Latha Complex, Opp.Board of Intermediate
MJ Road, Nampally, D.No.5-A-196 to 207
Hyderabad-001

3.   The Assistant General Manager RACP
State Bank of India, 3^rd Floor, D.No.1-1-78
Zonal Office, Patny Centre
Secunderabad-003

                                                        Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellants             M/s Y.D.Badola

Counsel for the Respondent           M/s G.Prabhakar Sarma

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI S.BUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

FRIDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER     

                                TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.             The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. She filed complaint seeking relief of restraining the first respondent- bank-bank from repossessing Maruthi Car bearing registration number AP 29K 6186.

2.             The facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the appellant purchased Maruthi 800 car on 27.09.2005 from Mitra Agencies which is authorized dealer of Maruthi Suzuki on loan for a sum of `2,25,000/- arranged by M/s Agencies in favour of the appellant by the first respondent- bank.  The loan amount was repayable in 60 monthly installments with each installment including principal and interest of `4,455/-  As on 12.11.2005 the appellant paid the amount of `2,86,925/-. The first respondent- bank issued letter dated 17.10.2011 demanding the appellant to pay an amount of `1,09,227/-.  The appellant submitted that the first respondent- bank-bank threatened her that it would repossess the vehicle in case the appellant does not pay the balance loan amount.

3.             The first respondent- bank resisted the claim on the premise that the complaint is not maintainable and the appellant has no cause of action to file the complaint. The first respondent-bank submitted that it had sanctioned loan amount of `2,25,000/- as per the terms stipulated in the sanction letter.  The complaint is not maintainable as the appellant has converted the District Forum into civil court. The first respondent- bank  is legally taking steps to recover the outstanding loan amount by following due process of law. The appellant executed Term Loan Agreement in favour of the first respondent- bank  her husband stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan amount.

4.             The first respondent- ba