ORDER

Per:Raj Kumar Pandey (Member)

Dated-30.01.2024

1.              The present appeal is directed against the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Commission) Rohtas (Sasaram) (in short District Commission) in consumer  complaint no. 76 of 2013,  by which  the learned District Commission directed the O.P Bank to  pay the auction amount i.e. Rs.2,36,100/- to the complainant, deposited the same as a successful bidder and also pay Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as a cost of litigation, total amount comes to Rs.2,66,100/- within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which the total amount will be payable with interest @8% P.A. till its entire payment. The learned District Commission, further directed the complainant that after receiving all the amount the complainant would return the said Belero to the opposite parties.

2.           In  brief  the case of the complainant is that the complainant participated in  the bid for purchasing the Bolero Pik-Up Van Model no. 2005 dealt with the Regional Manager, State Bank of India the Regional Business Office, Sasaram concerning a bid of the vehicle and was a successful bidder and as such he deposited the bid amount of Rs.2,36,100/- in the State Bank of India, Daudnagar branch District- Aurangabad. It was the further case of the complainant that he assured by the Bank that after payment of the bid amount the owner book and other documents related to the vehicle would be handed over to the complainant. Thereafter official formalities were performed at the instance of concerned Bank and on the advice of the Branch Manager (opposite party no.2) vehicle was delivered to the complainant, but no paper concerning the said vehicle was provided to the complainant despite assurance given by the opposite party and as a result complainant could not ply the vehicle on road.  It was the further case of the complainant that he approached several times to the opposite party and requested to provide the documents required for successful ply of the vehicle, but no heed was paid by the opposite party. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no.76 of 2013 before the learned District Commission.    

3.        On notice opposite parties (Bank) appeared in the complaint case and filed written version alleging therein that the complaint was not maintainable with respect to jurisdiction.

4.           After hearing both the parties, the Ld. District Commission passed the order as mentioned  in paragraph no.1 of this order.

5.                 Being aggrieved  and dissatisfied  with the order passed by the Ld. District Commission the opposite parties have preferred this appeal on the grounds  ‘inter- alia’ that  the Ld. District Commission  passed the order over riding the jurisdictional power  and entertain the time barred complaint which is beyond the  provision of the Consumer Protection Act, as movable/ immovable property purchased in a public auction does not fall under the consumer protection Act and it has been prayed that  the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission has no merit and liable to be set aside in limine with cost and allow this appeal.

6.     During the course of hearing of this appeal both the parties have filed written notes of argument in support of their respective case and  they have reiterated their stands as taken in the complaint petition and WS / Memo of appeal respectively.

 7.                     We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and gone through materials available on records as well as perused the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission.

8.                 The matter for consideration in this appeal is mainly related to whether the opposite parties/ appellant were responsible to provide valid documents to the Respondent/Complainant for the successful plying of the auctioned vehicle for which the payment was made by the complainant. As a matter of facts once the amount has paid for the vehicle in bid by the successful bidder he became entitle not only the possession of vehicle but also valid papers required for the registration and successful plying of the vehicle. As such responsibility is cast upon the concerned bank to provide proper papers guidelines and assistant to the person by whom any movable or immovable property has purchased in auction sell. It is the admitted fact that all the papers concerning the vehicle was in possession of the Bank and until lawful transfer is made to the person to whom the vehicle was handed over successful ply of the vehicle concerned is not possible, but the opposite parties failed to provide required documents to the complainant/Respondent. Hence, they were deficient in their service.  As such we find no any illegality or the infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. District Commission, hence required no interference.  

9.            As a result this appeal is dismissed   

10.          A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019. Order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

11.           Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

Mukund