State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Patiala & Anr. vs Jaspal Singh on 19 November, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1193 of 2011
Date of institution: 08.08.2011
Date of Decision : 19.11.2013
1. State Bank of Patiala, The Mall, Patiala through its
Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre (SARC),
First Floor, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar (now 4th Floor J.K. Tower,
Mall Road Amritsar) through its Chief Manager
.....Appellants/O.Ps
Versus
Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Jagmohan Singh, R/o 177, Krishna Square-II,
Amritsar
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
20.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Jaspal Singh, in person
JASBIR SINGH GILL (MEMBER)
The appellants/O.Ps have filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 140 of 09.02.2010 vide which the complaint of the complainant was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent purchased a house of 50 square yards having Khasra No. 1929/509, 461 to 468, 445/1, 485 min Gopal Nagar B/S Gopal Mandir Amritsar in an auction held by the opposite parties on 05.03.2008. Respondent was called upon to make First Appeal No. 1193 of 2011 2 payment of 25% of the total price of Rs. 4.70 lac amounting to Rs. 1,17,500/- and the said payment was immediately deposited by the respondent with the appellant No. 2. According to the respondent, he visited the Branch of appellant No. 2 to make the balance payment of Rs. 3,52,500/- and also requested the appellant No. 2 to handover the possession of the said property. But the appellant neither accepted the balance amount nor handed over the possession of the said property. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to handover the possession of house and accept the balance amount. It was also prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties field reply taking preliminary objections that the respondent entered into an agreement dated 04.03.2008 with the opposite party bank and terms and conditions of the same were read over to the respondent and after admitting the same as true duly signed the agreement. As per clause 12 of the agreement "The undersigned reserve its right to withdraw any property or portion thereof at any stage before confirming of sale" and as per clause No. 19 "The property will be auctioned/sold AS IS WHERE IS BASIS". It was submitted that before starting the bid all the bidders were having the knowledge that the house subject to the auction is in the possession of the borrower and the bank is not in actual physical possession of the said house and only symbolic possession had been taken by the appellants bank. It was further submitted that as per the terms and conditions, the highest bidder was to deposit 25% of the total amount within 24 hours from the date of auction. Complainant handed over two banker cheques for Rs. 21,500/- and Rs. 96,000/- to the O.Ps as 25% of the total amount i.e. Rs. 1,17,500/- First Appeal No. 1193 of 2011 3 and the same was not encashed by the O.P bank and are still lying with the bank. Other allegations are denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Parties were allowed by the District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of letter dated 05.03.2008 Ex. C-3, letter dated 05.03.2008 Ex. C-3, letter dated 07.12.2009 Ex. C-4, copy of letter consisting of 15 documents and postal receipts Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, O.Ps tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. S.C. Bajaj, Manager, Ex. R-1, copy of acceptance of bid dated 05.03.2008 Ex. R-2, copy of terms and conditions Ex. R-3, copy of application for bid dated 04.03.2008 Ex. R-4, copy of letter dated 12.12.2009 Ex. R-5, copy of application for police help for taking possession dated 01.09.2009 Ex. C-6, copy of letter to the agency for taking possession dated 20.01.2009 Ex. R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the O.Ps.
7. After going through the complaint and evidence on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellants either to return the banker's cheque to the respondent or to pay the amount of Rs. 1,17,500/-, the amount of the said banker's cheques. Appellants were further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the abovesaid amount of Rs. 1,17,500/- to the respondent from date of receipt of the banker's cheques till payment alongwith Rs. 5000/- in lumpsum as compensation and litigation expenses.
8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/O.Ps filed the present appeal on the grounds that as per the First Appeal No. 1193 of 2011 4 terms of the auction proceedings an amount 25% of the amount was to be deposited by the respondent and remaining 75% was to deposited within a period of 15 days of the confirmation of the sale. However he did not make the balance payment within the said period. It is further stated that the auction of the residential house was on "AS IS WHERE IS BASIS" and "AS IS WHAT IS BASIS". In these circumstances the complainant cannot turn around and seek the refund of the money and damage. Hence prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and respondent in person.
10. It is not disputed that the respondent had gave highest bid for purchase of house in dispute in an auction conducted by the appellant and gave two banker's cheque for Rs. 21,500/- and Rs. 96,000/- total amount of Rs. 1,17,500/- to the appellants as 25% of total amount. The dispute is only that the appellants have not handed over the possession of the house in question nor accepted the balance amount of Rs. 3,52,000/-.
11. As per the public notice published in two newspapers, it was mentioned in the advertisement that the property which has been put for auction was being sold on "AS IS WHERE IS BASIS" and "AS IS WHAT IS BASIS". As per terms of auction, 25% of the sale price was to be deposited within 24 hours, which was deposited by the respondent. There was no assurance for any specific or particular amenities and the prospective purchaser, participated in the auction after having an opportunity of examine of the site, which was to be sold in auction. Keeping in view the existing situation and condition of the site, the respondent purchased the house in open auction with open eyes. First Appeal No. 1193 of 2011 5
12. As per the complainant, he is ready to make the balance payment of Rs. 3,52,500/- against the delivery of actual possession of the house in dispute. But O.Ps are not in position to hand over the possession of the house. That actual possession of the house is with its owner Jagan Nath Tiwari, S/o Ram Niwas Tiwari and not with the appellants.
13. In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum is legal and there is no ground to go against the said order. The appeal is meritless and the same is dismissed.
14. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 8.08.2011. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- alonwith interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of crossed cheque/bank draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum. Remaining amount will be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 08.11.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
November 19, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
RK Member
First Appeal No. 1193 of 2011 6