View 3976 Cases Against Bank Of Baroda
View 3976 Cases Against Bank Of Baroda
Ashok Dogra filed a consumer case on 09 Aug 2023 against Bank of Baroda in the DF-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/181/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Aug 2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH
======
Consumer Complaint No | : | 181 of 2020 |
Date of Institution | : | 16.03.2020 |
Date of Decision | : | 09.08.2023 |
Ashok Dogra s/o Sh.G.C.Dogra, R/o H.No.21, Attawa, Chandigarh.
…..Complainant
1] Bank of Baroda through its Senior Branch Manager, Raipur Khurd Branch, Chandigarh
2] Registering & Licensing Authority through RTO, Sector 17, Chandigarh
….. Opposite Parties
MR.S.K.SARDANA MEMBER
Argued by :- Complainant in person.
Sh.Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh.Shri Ram, Govt. Pleader for OP NO.2
PER S. K. SARDANA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that the OP No.1 Bank conducted e-auction sale of Toyota Innova Regd. No.CH-01-AM-3756 which was possessed by the Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the reserve price for the said property was fixed at Rs.4,27,000/-. It is stated that the complainant being highest bidder in the said e-auction of Toyota Innova Regd.No.CH-01-AM-3756, deposited the complete amount of Rs.4,62,000/- with OP Bank and thereafter, he was issued Sale Confirmation Letter by OP Bank. It is also stated that the complainant visited OP No.2- Registering & Licensing Authority, Chandigarh for transfer of said vehicle’s ownership in the name of complainant per sale certificate, but the same was denied saying that it is the matter between bank and borrower/first owner and the complainant cannot approach directly for it. It is submitted that the RC of the vehicle was not provided at the time of sale certificate as it was reported lost. It is also submitted that the OP No.2 stated that as per RLA’s notification Ann.c-2, it was the duty of the bank to transfer the vehicle first in their own name and thereafter bank can freely transfer it in the name of successful bidder. It is pleaded that due to non transfer of vehicle in question in the name of complainant, he is subject to heavy penalty. It is also pleaded that more than 3 years have passed, but the OPs failed to transfer the vehicle in the name of complainant. A legal notice was also sent to the Ops on 18.4.2019 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service.
2] The OP No.1-Bank of Baroda has filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that Sale Confirmation Letter in respect of the vehicle in question had been issued in favour of the complainant after he made full payment being highest bidder. It is stated that the OP Bank had provided all the relevant documents to the complainant regarding registration of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that after issuance of Sale Certificate and NOC to the complainant, it is the duty of the complainant to approach the authority to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in his name and the OP Bank has no role thereafter. It is admitted that original RC of the vehicle was not provided as it was reported lost. It is denied that it is a duty of bank to transfer the vehicle first in his own name and thereafter bank will transfer the same in the name of the successful bidder/complainant. It is stated that it is not possible for the bank to apply for transfer of a vehicle of very person. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] OP No.2 (R.L.A.) though represented by Govt. Pleader, but no notice of the present compliant was issued to it.
4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5] We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OP No.1, ld.Govt. Pleader for OP No.2 and also gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.
6] On perusal of the complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of being successful bidder in auction of vehicle done by OP No.1, he has not been able to get the vehicle’s Registration Certificate transferred in his name from the Office of OP No.2/Registering & Licensing Authority, Chandigarh.
7] From the correspondence of the complainant with the official of OP No.1 annexed as Ann.C-3, it transpires that inspite of taking up matter time and again, the OP No.1 has not been able to get the vehicle’s RC transferred in the name of the complainant inspite of paying an amount of Rs.4,62,000/- to the OP No.1 due to which no useful purpose of buying a vehicle in the open auction has been served.
8] By not arranging to transfer the RC of the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant inspite of paying Rs.4,62,000/- to it, the OP No.1 is deficient in providing service and has also indulged in unfair trade practice.
9] In view of the above discussion & findings, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP NO.1 to refund the amount of Rs.4,62,000/- to the complainant.
This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10] It is made clear that the complainant, after receipt of above awarded amount from OP No.1, shall handover the vehicle in question to OP No.1 in running condition as well as its documents, so received from OP No.1 and also sign necessary documents in favour of the OP No.1 as requisite by it in respect of said vehicle.
11] The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.
Announced
09.08.2023
Sd/-
(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(S.K.SARDANA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.