This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Indian Bank questioning the correctness of order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in M.A.No.12/368 a/w A/12/1027, in appeal against order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Additional Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint Case No.CC/11/235. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the application for condonation of delay as also the main appeal on the ground that the petitioner bank has failed to comply with the direction issued by it vide order dated 06.11.2012. By the said pre-emptory order, while issuing notice to the respondent, it was directed that if the Petitioner fails to file a complete set of appeal compilation within 7 days from the date of the said order, the application together with the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Nikhil Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since question of maintainability of the complaint itself was involved in the appeal, the State Commission should not have dismissed the appeal merely because the petitioner had failed to file certain documents. It is pleaded that in the interest of substantial justice, an opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal should have been granted by the State Commission. At the same time, Mr. Jain has brought to our notice order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner bank has been restrained from taking physical possession of the subject flat. It is thus, submitted that in any event, in the light of the said order, the bank is not in a position to comply with the order passed by the District Forum and deliver possession of the flat to the complainants. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that having put the flat to public auction and received the bid amount of `19,22,000/- from the complainants, the auction purchaser,the stand of the bank that it can neither deliver the possession of the flat nor refund the bid amount received by it as far back as in November 2010, is wholly unjustified. Having perused the documents on record, we are of the view that it does not behove a public sector bank to refuse to refund the bid amount received by it on auction of the said property, when for some reasons, it is unable to deliver the possession of the property auctioned by it. It amounts to unjustified enriching itself and also depriving the auction purchaser of the property. Therefore, having regard to the facts at hand and the aforestated subsequent development, viz. the order of the DRT, we are of the opinion that even if we were to agree with the Ld. Counsel for petitioner, the remand of the case to the State Commission would be a futile exercise, as it may be difficult for the bank to deliver possession of the flat to the complainants. We are in complete agreement with the District Forum that, having failed to deliver the possession of the property in question, the bank was liable to refund the aforesaid amount along with interest from 12.10.2010. We are of the view that the bank is not at all justified in persistently pursuing the case upto this Commission. However, we feel that the interest awarded by the District Forum is on the higher side. Accordingly, we dispose of the Revision Petition with a direction that the aforesaid amount shall be refunded to the complainants along with interest @ 12% per annum from 12.10.2010 till the date of actual payment. Other directions by the District Forum will remain unchanged. The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. |
