IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY y TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4099 OF 2024 Between: State Bank of India, Tilak Road Branch, Ananthapuramu Rep by its Branch Manager, D. Lakshmi Narasimhulu S/o D. Pamuleti, aged about 39 years, Tilak Road, Ananthapuramu ...PETITIONER AND A. Nagaraja Rao, S/o A. Jagannatha Rao, aged about 58 years R/o Flat No.302, Vasantha Orchid, Block-A, Vasantha Valley, White Fields Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084 M/s Nano Product Group, Passenger car Business Unit Tata Motors, 5th Floor, One Forbes, Dr. V.B.Gandhi Marg, Kalaghoda Fort Mumbai - 400001 The Chairman, Permanent Loka Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ananthapuramu (Respondent no.3 impleaded as per c.o.dt.27.01.2025 vide lA No.3/2024 in WP No.4099/2024) 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the award dated 18.10.2023 in P.L.A.C.No.28 of 2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ananthapuramu as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and opposed to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and consequently set aside the award dated 18.10.2023 in P.L.A.C.No.28 of 2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ananthapuramu. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the award passed in P.L.A.C.No.28 of 2019 dated 18.10.2023 by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ananthapuramu. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1:SRI S. MURALI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3:-- The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010076402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] MONDAY .THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4099/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER State Bank Of India AND ...RESPONDENT(S) A Nagaraja Rao and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.S MURALI MOHAN The Court made the following: (perHon’ble Sh Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) ORDER: The 1®' respondent herein applied for allotment of Nano Car, from the 2""^ respondent. For the purpose of purchasing this car, the 1®* respondent is said to have approached the petitioner bank for a loan. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have remitted nd respondent as the purchase price of the Rs.1,40,000/- to the 2 Nano Car. These transactions took place in the year 2009. 2 2. Subsequently, in the year 2017, - addressed by the petitioner to the and 2 upon them to repay the amount of Rs. paid out to the 2^'^ respondent for the 1®’ respondent. a communication was nd respondents, calling 1,40,000/-, which had been purchase of the car, in favour of 3. At that stage, the 1 St respondent herein approached the Lok , Ananthapuramu, by contending that the aforesaid Adalat for Public Utility Service, P.L.A.C.No. 28 of 2019 way of sum of respondent, respondent and without his consent The 1®‘ respondent's liability for repayment of the aforesaid sums would not arise, as the Nano Car was not handed over or sold to the 1= respondent. The petitioner had reported the non-payment of the respondent, due to which the respondent was reduced, resulting in damage to respondent. Rs. 1,40,000/- without informing the 1 was remitted by the petitioner to the 2 nd aforesaid sum as a default by the 1 cibil score of the 1^* the rights of the 1 4. The permanent Lok Adalat petitioner as well as the 2""^ attempt of the petitioner to Rs. 1,40,000/- petitioner had caused respondent. On this basis after issuing notice to the respondent, had taken the view that the recover the aforesaid sum of such action of the material damage to the interest the permanent Lok Adalat to the 1 and the 2'^'^ respondent. was without jurisdiction and that of the 1 had awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,40 000/- respondent, payable by petitioner herein 5. Aggrieved by this order of the r 18.10.2023, the petitioner approached this of the petitioner that permanent Lok Adalat. dated Court. It is the contention was remitted to the ‘ respondent, and as to clear the said liability. The a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- 2 respondent only on the instructions of the 1 such, the 1®‘ respondent cannot refuse 3 petitioner also contends that the action of the permanent Lok Adalat in levying a costs of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the petitioner is clearly impermissible, as it was the petitioner who has lost the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,40,000/-, and as such, no compensation is required to be paid to the 1®* respondent. The 1 respondent, through his legal counsel, reiterates the contention of the 1®* respondent raised in PLAC.No.28 of 2019. St A perusal of the order of the permanent Lok Adalat, would show that the Lok Adalat took the view that the petitioner had paid out Rs.1,40,000/- to the 2'^'‘ respondent, without informing the 1 respondent. The permanent Lok Adalat also took the view that the petitioner having kept quiet for eight years from 2009, could not have initiated action against the 1®' respondent, for recovery of money. The further contention of the 1®‘ respondent is that the permanent Lok Adalat had passed the impugned order, on the basis of the admission of the manager of the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.2, that there were no dues pending from the 1®* respondent to the Bank. 6. St The order of the permanent Lok Adalat appears to be based on the finding that the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was remitted to the 2''^ respondent without consent or knowledge of the 1®‘ respondent. The facts as set out above would show that the 1®' respondent had approached the petitioner bank for loan of Rs.1,40,000/-, for purchase of the vehicle. In such circumstances, it could not be possible for this Court to accept the contention that the remittance of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner to the 2 respondent is without the knowledge of the 1®' respondent. 7. nd 8. However, the fact remains that, irrespective of whether the amount of Rs. 1, 40,000/- was paid out or not, it would not be I.., ' 4 permissible for the petitioner to initiate litigation for recovery of such amount, as the period of limitation had expired long back. 9. Though the petitioner may not be able to recover the money, from the 1®* respondent, it would not preclude the petitioner from informing the credit rating agency about the said default. In such circumstances, this Court does find a necessity to interfere with the order of the permanent Lok Adalat, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- towards mental agony, that is said to have been suffered by the 1®' respondent on account of the grading of his cibil score. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the permanent Lok Adalat dated 18.10.2023, to the extent of liability imposed on the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. M/s Nano Product Group, Passenger car Business Unit Tata Motors, 5*^ Floor, One Forbes, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg, Kalaghoda Fort Mumbai -400001 2. The Chairman, Permanent Loka Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ananthapuramu. 3. A. Nagaraja Rao, S/o A. Jagannatha Rao, aged about 58 years R/o Flat No.302, Vasantha Orchid, Block-A, Vasantha Valley, White Fields Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084 4. One CC to Sri P. Rajkumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri S. Murali Mohan, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies. Ssb PRK HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.4099 of 2024 5 0 6 MAR 2075 Curreni d«c«on . ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS