SBI directed to pay Rs 70,000 as compensation to RTC staffer

The bank was also directed to pay interest on Rs 20,000 at six per cent per annum from June 2017 till the date of payment of compensation.
For representational purpose (File Photo | EPS)
For representational purpose (File Photo | EPS)

HYDERABAD:  The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, on Wednesday, directed the Chief Manager of the SBI TSRTC Branch to pay Rs 20,000 towards expenses and Rs 50,000 towards compensation for deficiency of service in offering a loan of Rs 10 lakh to an RTC employee. The bank was also directed to pay interest on Rs 20,000 at six per cent per annum from June 2017 till the date of payment. 

According to sources, the complainant Gudavalli Basker Babu is an employee of the TSRTC and resides at Malakpet. For purchasing a flat in Saidabad, he had approached the SBI TSRTC Branch Chief Manager for sanction of loan to the tune of Rs 10 lakh. He had provided all necessary documents and obtained legal opinion on the title of property from SV Sudhir Kumar on the insistence of the SBI staff. 

After obtaining the title report, he was directed to G Rama Manoja for legal opinion and was asked to procure valuation reports from approved valuers and Chartered Engineers, for which Babu spent Rs 20,000. After obtaining the reports, the SBI officials informed Babu that he was eligible for release of Rs 4,35,000 only.

The complainant filed a case before the District Consumer Court and got a favourable order. The SBI officials, however, filed an appeal before the State Consumer Court. In an appeal affidavit, the SBI official said that there was no deficiency of service on his part as the case related to availing of loan facility. 
Since it is a public institution and trustee of funds, it does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, he said.  

It was also required to examine the right of title and interest of the applicant over the property proposed as security. The complainant did not fulfil the required criteria as per the policy guidelines and his monthly take-home income was not conforming, which was why he was found ineligible for consideration of loan facility, he added.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com