Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/232/2023

ASHOK DOGRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH HEAD BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

(ADDITIONAL BENCH)

 

Appeal No.	:	232 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	09.09.2023
Date of Decision	:	13.06.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Sh. Ashok Dogra S/o Sh. G. C. Dogra R/o H.No.21, Attawa, Chandigarh.

….Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      Bank of Baroda through its Senior Branch Manager, Raipur Khurd Branch, Chandigarh.

 

2]      Registering & Licensing Authority through RTO, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

...Respondents/Opposite Parties.

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Ashok Dogra, appellant/complainant in person.

Sh. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2.

 

Appeal No.	:	290 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	20.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	13.06.2024

 

 

 

Bank of Baroda through its Senior Branch Manager, Raipur Khurd Branch, Chandigarh.

 

Presently filed through Mr. Hitesh Sehgal son of Sh. Ashok Sehgal, Aged 41 years, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Recovery Section, Sector -17, Chandigarh.

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1]      Sh. Ashok Dogra S/o Sh. G. C. Dogra R/o H.No.21, Attawa, Chandigarh.

...Respondent/Complainant.

2]      Registering & Licensing Authority through RTO, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

...Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

 

BEFORE:   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Ashok Dogra, respondent No.1/complainant in person.

None for respondent No.2.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                    Vide this order, we are deciding above captioned appeals i.e. appeal bearing No.232 of 2023 filed by the complainant – Sh. Ashok Dogra and appeal bearing No.290 of 2023 filed by Opposite Party No.1 – Bank of Baroda. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide order dated 09.08.2023, under appeal(s), has partly allowed the consumer complaint bearing No.181 of 2020 of the complainant – Sh. Ashok Dogra, directing opposite party No.1 – Bank of Baroda (in short ‘Bank’) to refund the amount of ₹4,62,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It (District Commission) further made it clear that after receipt of above amount, the complainant shall handover the vehicle in question to opposite party No.1 in running condition alongwith documents and also sign necessary documents in favour of opposite party No.1. However, the complaint was dismissed against opposite party No.2 – Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh.

2]                Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that opposite party 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 ₹4,27,000/-. The complainant being the highest bidder in the said e-auction deposited the complete amount of ₹4,62,000/- with opposite party No.1 - Bank and thereafter, he was issued Sale Confirmation Letter by opposite party No.1 - Bank.  The complainant visited opposite party No.2 - Registering & Licensing Authority, Chandigarh for transfer of said vehicle’s ownership in his name per sale certificate but the same was denied saying that it is the matter between bank and borrower/first owner and the complainant could not approach directly for it. The RC of the vehicle was not provided at the time of sale certificate as it was reported lost. Opposite Party No.2 stated that as per RLA’s notification, Annexure C-2, it was the duty of opposite party No.1 - Bank to transfer the vehicle first in its own name and thereafter opposite party No.1 - Bank could freely transfer it in the name of successful bidder. Due to non transfer of vehicle in question in his name, the complainant was subjected to heavy penalty. More than 3 years have passed but the opposite parties failed to transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite parties on 18.4.2019 but of no avail. 

3]                On the other hand, it was the stand of Opposite Party No.1 - Bank before the District Commission 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 was further stated that all the relevant documents were also provided to the complainant regarding registration of the said vehicle. It was further stated that after issuance of Sale Certificate and NOC to the complainant, it was the duty of the complainant to approach the authority for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in his name and the opposite party No.1 - Bank had no role thereafter. It was admitted that original RC of the vehicle was not provided as it was reported lost. It was denied that it was duty of the bank to transfer the vehicle first in its own name and thereafter, bank will transfer the same in the name of the successful bidder/complainant. It was stated that it was not possible for the bank to apply for transfer of a vehicle of every person.

4]      Though opposite party No.2 was represented by Govt. Pleader before the District Commission but no notice of the complaint was issued to it by the District Commission.            

5]                In his appeal bearing No.232 of 2023, the complainant is seeking compensation and damages for the loss and inconvenience caused to him on account of deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice committed by opposite party No.1, which the District Commission has not awarded.

6]                On the other hand, opposite party No.1 – Bank in its appeal bearing No.290 of 2023 is seeking setting aside of the order impugned passed by the District Commission on the ground that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the complaint filed by the complainant was time barred as the sale confirmation letter was given on 03.02.2017 whereas the complaint was filed on 16.03.2020; that inaction and delay is on the part of opposite party No.2, for which opposite party No.1 cannot be held responsible. It is further stated that the District Commission did not appreciate that the complainant was the employee of the Bank and he already knew about all the fact regarding the case including the lost registration certificate of the vehicle and now he is blaming opposite party No.1 – Bank. It has further been stated that the officials of opposite party No.1 – Bank also approached opposite party No.2 to submit the file of transfer of vehicle but registration was not transferred by opposite party No.2.

7]             After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the documentary evidence/material available on record, we do not find any merit in appeal bearing No.290 0f 2023 filed by opposite party No.1 - Bank, which deserves to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Per record, it is clear from the correspondence between the complainant and the official of opposite party No.1 – Bank, Annexure    C-3, that despite numerous efforts, opposite party No.1 – Bank failed to transfer the vehicle's Registration Certificate (RC) in the name of the complainant. This failure occurred despite the complainant having paid ₹4,62,000/- to opposite party No.1 – Bank, resulting in no practical benefit from purchasing the vehicle at the open auction. By not facilitating the transfer of the vehicle's RC in the name of the complainant despite the payment of ₹4,62,000/-, opposite party No.1 – Bank has demonstrated a deficiency in service and engaged in unfair trade practices. Further, email dated 04.01.2019 at Page 135 of the District Commission’s record transpires that the complainant vide his email showed his anguish as the matter for transfer of vehicle in his name was being delayed on one pretext or the other by opposite party No.1 – Bank. On 13.01.2019, vide its email opposite party No.1 – Bank informed the complainant that they met with RLA officials, who informed that first a file for duplicate RC would be submitted and duplicate RC would be issued. After that a file for transfer of vehicle  from Sukhwant Kaur to the Bank’s name would be submitted and car would be transferred in Bank’s name. After this, a file would be submitted for transfer of vehicle from Bank’s name to the name of the complainant. However, opposite party No.1 – Bank totally failed to get the RC transferred in the name of the complainant as per the procedure and steps told to it by the Registering and Licensing Authority, opposite party No.2. In Annexure R-6, email dated 07.03.2019, opposite party No.1 – Bank informed the complainant that opposite party No.1 – Bank  is not failing in doing the transfer but the RLA office, opposite party No.2 is making them go from counter to counter and at every counter, either there is different procedure or signature of Sukhwant Kaur and original RC is sought which is not possible and hence, the delay is due to RLA office being non-cooperative in the matter. It may be stated here that opposite party No.1 – Bank cannot shift its burden upon opposite party No.2 as it was required of opposite party No.1 – Bank to follow due and proper procedure to get the RC transferred in the name of the complainant as advised by opposite party No.2 and as mentioned in email dated 13.01.2019 aforesaid. Therefore, once opposite party No.1 – Bank had sold the vehicle in auction to the complainant, therefore, it was its sole duty to get the RC transferred in the name of the complainant. If the RC had been lost, its duplicate copy could have been arranged by opposite party No.1 – Bank from opposite party No.2 office but it totally failed to perform its duties. As such, the District Commission rightly directed opposite party No.1 – Bank to refund an amount of ₹4,62,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has been forced to file this unwanted litigation for justice, which could have been avoided, had the RC been transferred in his name. However, while ordering refund, it (District Commission) erred in not awarding any compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 – Bank. In case of non-refund of the awarded amount within the stipulated period, no penal clause or interest has been awarded by the District Commission. We may state here that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act are quasi judicial bodies, required to observe the principles of natural justice and to award relief of a specific nature and to award wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The compensation is required to be fair, just and not unreasonable and arbitrary. Here in the instant case, looking at the sufferance of the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment due to deficient services and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 – Bank, a consolidated compensation in the sum of ₹25,000/-, if awarded, to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. Thus, appeal bearing No.232 of 2023 deserves to be accepted to this extent i.e. award of compensation.

8owHowhOWQLLL

]                  For the reasons recorded above, appeal bearing No.290 of 2023 filed by opposite party No.1 – Bank stands dismissed being devoid of any merit with no orders as to costs.

9]                However, appeal bearing No.232 of 2023 filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The impugned order is modified as under:-

1. Opposite party No.1 – Bank is directed to refund an amount of ₹4,62,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @9% p.a. from the date of  default i.e. after expiry of stipulated period of 45 days’ till actual realization.
2. Opposite party No.1 – Bank shall pay consolidated amount of ₹25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of ₹25,000/-shall carry penal interest @9% p.a. from the date of  default i.e. after expiry of 45 days’ period till actual realization.
3. The complainant, after receipt of the above awarded amounts from opposite party No.1 – Bank, shall handover the vehicle in question to opposite party No.1-Bank, so received from it and also sign necessary documents in favour of opposite party No.1 – Bank as requisite by it in respect of the said vehicle.

10]              Copy of this order be placed in the file of appeal No.290 of 2023.

11]            Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12]              Files be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

13.06.2024.

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

PRESIDNG MEMBER

 

 

 

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Ad