| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 682 of 3-11-2014 Decided on : 16-05-2016 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singla aged about 50 years S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, R/o P-03, Giani Zail Singh Punjab Technical University Campus, Dabwali Road, Bathinda. ….....Complainant Versus Central Bank of India, Regional Office, K.C. Complex, Near Hotel Park Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, GZSCET Dabwali Road, Bathinda.
.........Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Member Sh. Jarnail Singh Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Rajan Garg, Advocate For the opposite partes : Sh. Naveen Goyal, Advocate. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa This complaint has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Singla, complainant against Central Bank of India and another opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 got published sale notice dated 27-12-2013 (statutory 30 days by tender/bid) for the sale of one residential property measuring 75 Sq. Yards comprised in Khasra No. 4700, Khewat Khatauni No. 50/2016 situated at Street No. 34, Near Mandi, Surkhpeer Road, Bathinda belonging to Paramjit Singh and Manjit Kaur. In response to this notice, complainant sent his bid application by depositing 5% of the reserve price i.e. Rs. 27,500/- vide DD No. 001279 dated 27-1-2014. The bid application of the complainant was accepted being highest but no bid application was submitted by any other person in this regard. The complainant being successful candidate was required to deposit 25% of reserve price immediately after adjusting 5% amount earlier deposited by the complainant. On the very next day i.e. 28-1-2014, the complainant informed the opposite parties that the property in question is in a very far remote area and the condition of the area are not suitable for his family and no water supply scheme etc., exists. Moreover, property in question is located at street No. 38 Surkhpeer Rioad, Bathinda, whereas in the sale notice its location was described at Street No. 34, Surkhpeer Road, Bathinda. The complainant requested opposite party No. 2 to refund the earnest money i.e. Rs. 27,250/- deposited by him. The claim of the complainant was declined by opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 2-7-2014 on the ground that under clause No. 2 of sale notice, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of earnest money deposit already deposited by him. Thereafter the complainant vide letters dated 7-7-2014 and 2-8-2014 further disclosed the fact concealed by the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite parties number of times and requested to admit his lawful claim but the opposite parties are lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further pleaded that in the first week of August, 2014 i.e. on 2-8-2014, the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest. Even otherwise since the opposite parties never supplied the copy of terms and conditions, they were bound to return the amount of earnest money but the opposite parties did not bother for the same. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 9-9-2014 which was received by the opposite parties as per acknowledgement card, but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. He has prayed for refund of Rs. 27,500/-; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and interest from the date of deposit in addition to Rs. 10,000/- as cost of this complaint. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel but they failed to file written version within statutory period. As such, matter was posted for evidence of the complainant vide order dated 28-1-2015. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his case, complainant has tendered tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 24-3-2015 (Ex. C-1). Photocopy of sale notice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of sale letter (Ex. C-3), photocopies of letters (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-7) and photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-8). In order to rebut this evidence, the opposite parties have produced affidavit dated 24-3-2015 (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of publication (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of bid (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of terms and conditions of sale (Ex. OP-1/5) and photocopy of acceptance letter (Ex. OP-1/6) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated his averments as stated in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that opposite parties got published sale notice dated 27-12-2013. Copy of the sale notice is Ex. C-2 as well as Ex. OP-1/2. The description of property in question is detailed at Sr. No. 6 of this notice. The property is depicted situated at Street No. 34 but the complainant has deposed on oath that this property is situated at Street No. 38. Therefore, the publication of the opposite parties is misleading. As such, the property sold to the complainant is liable to be set aside for this sole ground. Moreover, the complainant has intimated the opposite parties well in time vide letter dated 28-1-2014 ( Ex. C-4) and has requested for return of his demand draft of Rs. 27,250/-. The request of the complainant has been declined vide letter dated 2-7-2014 (Ex. C-5) on the ground that as per clause No. '2' failing to deposit the amount entails forfeiture of the earnest money. When the complainant has withdrawn from his bid well in time, the opposite parties were not to forfeit earnest money. Moreover, the opposite parties have also placed on record copy of bid (Ex. OP-1/4). It proves that there was only one bid submitted by the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties were not to accept this being a single bid. The acceptance of bid is void for this reason also. Therefore the action of the opposite parties in forfeiting the earnest money amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. As such, the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that complainant has admittedly submitted his bid in response to publication (Ex. OP-1/2). The details of the property and area of the property were duly mentioned in this notice. In addition to street number, it was also mentioned that property was near Mandir. Therefore there was no confusion regarding allocation of property. In the notice itself it is made clear that inspection of scheduled properties by the intending tenderers can be done during office hours before submission of tender. Therefore, the complainant was also given opportunity for inspection of the scheduled property. As such, there is no mis-representation by the opposite parties. The complainant has alleged that scheduled property is situated at street No. 38 instead of street No. 34, but there is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove this fact. The bid submitted by the complainant was accepted on 28-1-2014. The complainant has accepted this offer by signing letter Ex. OP-1/3. Therefore, there was no mis-representation or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. As such, the complainant cannot claim refund of the earnest money. It has been forfeited for default in deposit of remaining part payment by the complainant. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. The undisputed facts are that the opposite parties published sale notice, copy of which is proved on file as Ex. C-2. The complainant submitted his bid for the property mentioned at Sr. No. 6. It was belonging to Paramjit Singh and Manjit Kaur. The description of property to be sold is mentioned in this sale notice. The area of the property is mentioned as 75 Sq. Yards. The property is shown situated at Gali No. 34, near Mandir and as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. The complainant has alleged that the property is situated at Street No. 38 and not at 34. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove this fact. The sale notice Ex. C-2 also reveals that intending bidders were given opportunity of inspection of scheduled property before submitting tender. If the complainant was having any doubt regarding location of property, he was to inspect the same before submitting tender. Submitting tender leads to inference that the complainant has inspected scheduled property before submitting bid. Of course the complainant has placed on record copy of letter Ex. C-4 to submit that he moved this application to withdraw bid application dated 27-1-2014. In this letter, the complainant has simply mentioned that after visiting the actual site he found that the site is in a very far remote area and the conditions of the area are not suitable for his family as well as according to his status. The complainant has no where mentioned that the property is not situated at Gali No. 34 or is situated at Gali No. 38. Therefore, it proves that complainant did not want to withdraw his bid mainly for the reason that property is situated at street No. 38 and not at street No. 34. The opposite parties have also placed on record copy of letter dated 28-1-2014 (Ex. OP-1/3). This letter was issued to the complainant in token of acceptance of his application for bid and this letter was signed by the complainant on 28-1-2014. In case the complainant was to withdraw his bid, then he was certainly not to accept this letter and was to express his intention for withdrawal of the bid before accepting this letter. This fact also proves that complainant has accepted letter issued in token of acceptance of his bid application. As per condition No. 9 of the terms and conditions of sale, the purchaser was required to deposit 25% of the amount of his purchase money and in default of such deposit, the amount of earnest money deposited shall stand forfeited in favour of the bank and the property is to be put up again and resold. Therefore, terms and conditions of sale entitles the opposite parties to forfeit the earnest money incase of default by purchaser. Admittedly, the complainant has failed to deposit 25% of sale amount. Therefore, the opposite parties were entitled to forfeit the earnest money. For the reasons recorded above, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 16-05-2016 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
