Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/457

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA

 

                                                          C.C.No. 457  of 26.06.2014                        

                                               Date of Order: 27.02.2015

Ajay Kumar s/o Sh.Ram Gopal R/o 5522, Street No.1, Raghuvir Park, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

… Complainant

Versus

 

1.Bank of Baroda, Tagore Nagar Branch, Ludhiana through its Manager.

2.The Municipal Corporation, Zone-A, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana through its Commissioner.

                                                                                     … Opposite Parties

 

       COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum

                   Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

Present

                   Sh.R.K.Chand, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh.Dev Raj Sharma, Advocate for OP2.

                   

ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Present complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Ajay Kumar (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against Bank of Baroda, Tagore Nagar Branch, Ludhiana through its Manager and others(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Ops’), directing them to transfer the property in the name of the complainant in the T.S-I.Record of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and to refund the amount of Rs.75,798/- alongwith interest and further, directing the OP2 to transfer the property in the T.S-I.Record of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana in the name of the complainant and copy of T.S-I. form be issued to the complainant, besides directions to the Ops to pay Rs.20,000/- compensation and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that Smt.Kanak Mala d/o Sh.Om Parkash Jain w/o Sh.Rajinder Kumar Jain and Smt.Adarsh Jain d/o Sh.Pyare Lal Jain w/o Sh.Pran Chand Jain were owners in possession of the property bearing Municipal Corporation House No.B-V-1286 measuring 185 sq.yards situated at Mohalla Krishanpuri, Brahampuri, Near Purana Bazar, Tehsil & District Ludhiana vide registered sale deed bearing vasika No.8713 dated 24.10.2010. Smt. Kanak Mala and Smt. Adarsh Jain mortgaged the abovesaid property with the OP1 and they became defaulter. The OP1 sold the abovesaid property through Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh(hereinafter in short to be refereed as ‘Tribunal’) which was purchased by the complainant in an open auction conducted by the Tribunal on 17.5.2013 which was free from all encumbrances. A sale certificate to this effect was issued by the Tribunal in favour of the complainant in Recovery Certificate No.143/12 on 26.11.2013. The possession of the above property was handed over to the complainant by the Tribunal and thus, the applicant is exclusive owner in possession of the abovesaid property/house No.B-V-1286. Since the property falls under Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, the complainant paid property tax of Rs.500/- to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana i.e. Op2 on 6.1.2014 for the assessment year 2013-2014 vide book No.49128 and receipt No.35 which was duly issued in the name of the complainant. The complainant paid entire amount to the bank through DRT Chandigarh. The complainant applied for the transfer of the property in his name in the T.S-I.Record of OP2 after paying the property tax but the OP2 authorities demanded more some sort of dues from the complainant. On inquiry, the complainant came to know from the authorities of OP2 that the said dues towards the water charges/due. The complainant requested OP2 that the said amount, if any, due has no connection with the complainant who is the present owner/the auction purchaser. The said dues are concerned with the previous owners and are standing in the books before the date of auction i.e. 17.5.2013. The complainant/auction purchaser is liable to pay any tax/water dues only from the date of confirmation of sale i.e. 26.11.2013, if there is any water connection in the property. The bank had sealed the property at the time of taking possession a few years ago. So, the question of demanding of water charges, if any, due for a sealed property which is without any connection does not arise. Moreover, when the water connection had already disconnected a few years back for non-payment, the question of demanding water dues does not arise in the absence of any connection. The complainant/auction purchaser/present owner is not liable to pay pre-sale dues i.e. dues pending before the auction in any manner as the property has been purchased in an open auction from the Tribunal. The complainant requested OP2 many times and also wrote letter dated 17.4.2014 to enter the name of the complainant in the T.S-I.Record but OP2 pressurized the complainant to deposit the dues of previous owners. The complainant had entered into an agreement with some other person to sell the abovesaid property and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant had to execute the sale deed in favour of the purchaser on or before 15.4.2014 and in absence of T.S-I.Form, the Sub-Registrar/Tehsildar does not execute the sale deed. The complainant requested OP2 to enter his name in the record of T.S-I but the OP2 started pressurizing the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.75,798/- and in case, the complainant fails to do so, then his abovesaid property shall be put in auction. The complainant to avoid any complication and under threat, deposited the said amount of Rs.75,798/- under protest and reserve his right to file the complaint. Despite repeated requests made to the OP2, OP2 has not transferred the property in the name of the complainant and also not returned the abovesaid amount of Rs.75,798/-. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, earlier OP1 was duly served but failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.8.2014 by this Forum, whereas, OP2 was duly served and appeared through Sh.Dev Raj Sharma, Advocate and filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable at all and the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. The complaint is misconceived and is filed by abusing the process of this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The complaint was infructuous on the day it was filed as the answering OP had already changed the name of the complainant in T.S-I.record vide order dated 18.6.2014, thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is submitted that Smt.Kanak Mala and Smt.Adarsh Jain as alleged were recorded in the Municipal record bearing No.B-V-1286. The answering OP had already changed the name of the complainant in T.S-I.Record vide order dated 18.6.2014 on the basis of the sale certificate. It is correct that the property falls under M.C.Limits and is assessed to that the property tax/house tax. It is denied that the complainant is consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Further, it is submitted that the complainant had applied for transfer of the property in his name in the T.S-I. Record of M.C.Ludhiana and that formalities of deposit of house tax, water and sewerage charges and disposal charges were to be paid by the complainant while getting the property transferred in his name. The complainant had deposited property tax, water and sewerage charges with the M.C.Ludhiana. After that the answering OP had changed the name of the complainant in T.S-I.Record vide order dated 18.6.2014. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                When the case was fixed for evidence of complainant, an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and proceedings against OP1 dated 22.10.2014 was filed by Sh.Sandeep Arora, Advocate which was allowed vide order dated 22.10.2014 by this Forum and thereafter on 4.11.2014, written reply was filed by Op1, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form. The answering OP is not liable to transfer the property in the name of the complainant in the record of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana because while publishing the auction notice, Hon’ble Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh had clearly mentioned in the auction notice that “All the outstanding, statutory dues/ taxes will be borne by the purchaser” and it was specifically mentioned in the different newspapers at that time. The complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. The alleged property was purchased by the complainant in an open auction conducted by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh and all the conditions were published in the different news papers and it is submitted that liability of the answering OP, if any, is strictly as per the terms and conditions of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. On merits, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to prove the case of the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.

6.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP1 in order to rebut the evidence of complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.Vijay Deep Sharma, its Officer(Credit) ,in which, he has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OP1 and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OP1 has proved on record documents Ex.R7 to Ex.R9.

7.                On the other side, learned counsel for the OP2 in order to rebut the evidence of complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Arun Bawa, its Jr.Assistant, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OP2 and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OP2 has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7.  

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully.

9.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the property in question in an open auction conducted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh on 17.5.2013. Further, it is a proved on record that before conducting the said auction, public notices Ex.R7 and Ex.R8 were given by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh for the auction of the property in question which the complainant had purchased with the clear notice that " all the outstanding, statutory dues/ taxes will be borne by the purchaser” and further, it is a proved fact that after going through this public notice, the complainant had joined the said auction proceedings and had become the auction purchaser of the property in question after well understanding the terms and conditions of the auction. So, it was very much within the knowledge of the complainant himself that obligation to pay the outstanding, statutory dues/taxes will be borne by the purchaser.

10.              It is also a proved fact on record that the complainant after purchasing the property in question, had deposited dues with the Op2 and got the property transferred in his name in the T.S-I record even prior to the filing of the present complaint which is evident from the evidence of OP2. However, the complainant has claimed the relief that property may be transferred in the name of the complainant in the T.S-I record of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to avoid a great loss to him. It is further a proved fact on record that before getting the property transferred in his name, the complainant had deposited Rs.75,798/- which was due against this property with OP2 in order to get his name transferred in the record of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Even at the time of getting this property transferred, the complainant had executed an affidavit Ex.R4, vide which, the complainant had never objected for the deposit of Rs.75,798/-, for which, he has claimed the refund. So, it appears that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops towards the complainant.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence on record. As such, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant being devoid of any merit. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

(Babita)                (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

 Member                  Member                        President  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:27.02.2015

GurpreetSharma.