Date of filing:-16/09/2015.
Date of Order:-08/11/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 53 of 2015.
Sri Arun Kumar Nanda, aged about 54(fifty four), S/o-Late Sudarshan Nanda, R/o.Lachipur, Po. Lachipur Ps. Dungripali, Dist. Subarnapur At/Present residing at Subashnagar W.N.14, Bargarh Post/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Oriental Bank of Commerce, represented through it’s Branch Manager, Bargarh Branch, Old NH-6, Bandutikra Chowk, Bargarh, Po/Ps & Dist-Bargarh….. Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri D.Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri A.K.Patra, Advocate with others Advocates
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.08/11/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case;-
In pursuance to the provision of Consumer Protection Act U/s 12 the Complainant preferred to file the case before the Forum pertaining to the un-fair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service to him as envisaged hereunder.
In pursuance to the auction sale offer of a residential house said to have been seized by the Opposite Party from one Bhumi Meher W/o-Jogendra Meher of Mouza-Kadalipali via Barpali of Bargarh District standing in Plot No-650/997(six five zero by nine nine seven) pertaining to Khata No.242/211(two four two by two one one) of area of Ac.0.10 dec(ten decimals), resulting to be defaulter in repaying Loan obtained by her from the Opposite Party Bank. The Complainant participated in such auction sale and being the highest bidder was declared by the Opposite Party Bank successful, and according to the procedure of the Opposite Party purchased the said building by paying the bidding amount of Rs.8,15,000/-(Rupees eight lakh fifteen thousand)only to the Opposite Party within some stipulated time in shape of Bank Draft and through on-line transfer. And thereafter the Opposite Party Bank executed a sale certificate in favor of the Complainant and assured him to give him delivery of possession of the same building within a week, but till yet he has not been given with the delivery of possession of the same even after several request made by the Complainant, to which the Complainant has claimed to be the unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service to him and being helpless has filed the case before the Forum with a prayer to issue him with a direction to deliver the possession of the same, and also has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay him interest @ 18 % (eighteen percent) per annum on his deposited amount of Rs. 8,15,000/-(Rupees eight lakh fifteen thousand)only from the date of the deposite of the said bidding amount till the date of delivery of possession of the same to him along with compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only in lieu of his mental agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses, And in support of his case has filed some of the following documents.
Letter Dt. 20.02.2015 issued by the Opposite Party Bank in favor of the Complainant in respect of auction sale of the scheduled property.
Sale certificate in respect of the scheduled property.
Any other Documents that may be required to prove complainant’s case.
Having perused the Complaint, the documents filed by him and on hearing his counsel the case was found to be a genuine one hence admitted and notice on the Opposite Party was served and on being served with notice the Opposite Party appeared and filed it’s version.
In it’s version the Opposite Party has admitted the case of the Complainant to the extent of the auction of the said building and the landed property, the Complainant being the highest bidder was also succeeded to the same but has denied the allegation of the contention made by the Complainant has played unfair trade practice and also deficient in non-rendering service by not delivering him the possession of the said building rather has tried to clarifie that in persuasion of the sale certificate Dt.16.03.2015 the delivery of possession was also given to the Complainant on the same date to which he claims to have acknowledged and is in possession of the same hence the case is not maintainable and has prayed to dismiss the case, in it’s support has also filed some documents such as the acknowledgment of delivery of possession containing the signature of the Complainant and signature of two witness and has denied to have deficient in rendering service and the allegation of unfair trade practice.
Having gone through the complaint the version of the Opposite Party and the documents filed by Parties the following points for determination have cropped up before us for proper adjudication of the case as follows.
Whether there has been delivery of possession of the disputed lands and building has effected ?
Whether the Opposite Party has committed unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim made by him ?
While considering the 1st points for determination as to whether the alleged delivery of possession of the property in question has been made or not, we vividly scrutinized all the materials available in the record including the documents filed by the Complainant filed later on after the version filed by the Complainant denying the alleged delivery of the possession of the property along with the Affidavits of the Complainant and the affidavits of the so called witness as evidence from his side to counteract the delivery of possession of the same wherein it was found that one executing officer of the Opposite Party has some how managed to obtain the signature of the witness and in plain paper and later on has got it prepared as a documents to the effect of delivery of possession of the same and so far as the signature of the Complainant is concerned, on the query of the Forum bluntly denied to have signed on it. So taking all the mentioned episode into consideration the Forum on it’s own motion deputed one Advocate Commissioner with the consent of the Counsel of both the Parties for a field verification to excavate the reality with regards to the possession of the said property.
The Advocate Commissioner along with the counsel for both Parties visited the spot with the instructed interrogatories issued by the Forum and conducted the inquiry, visited the spot enquired from the neighboring tenants of the alleged house and submitted his report before the Forum which clearly reveals the fact that at no point of time the house in question has been vacated nor any delivery of possession of the same has been made to the Complainant, to which the advocate for the Opposite Party vehemently objected which in our view is not tenable. And answered accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly with regard to the question as to whether the Opposite Parties has committed unfair trade practice and has caused deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant, in this regard in our foregoing paragraph we have already expressed our view in favor of the Complainant after a thorough study over the matter as such obviously enough the case is an exemplary case of unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service committed by the Opposite Party Bank which is supposed to be a most trusted and transparent financial institution but in stead is playing with the money of the Consumer, for which it should be dealt with other provision of Law in addition to the Consumer Protection Act-1986. As such our view is expressed in affirmative in favor of the Complainant.
Thirdly with regard to the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim made by him, in this regard as we have already examined all the materials available before us in the record and have expressed our views in favor of the Complainant that the Opposite Party Bank is very much deficient in rendering service to the Complainant and has gone beyond extreme to it’s duty towards it’s customer and has caused unfair trade practice in it’s dealing with the Complainant and as such has made the Complainant very much entitled to his claim in addition to that the concerned officer in executing the alleged documents is liable for both civil and criminal action as per Law. As such our answered accordingly in favor of the Complainant. Hence Order follows.
O R D E R
Hence in view of the aforesaid finding of the Forum the Opposite Party Bank is directed to give delivery of possession of the scheduled property given below in foot of the order within one month of the receipt of the order and also further directed to pay him an interest @ 9 % (nine percent) per annum on the amount paid by the Complainant from the date of such payment till the date of the actual delivery of possession of the same, and with regard the compensation for the physical and mental harassment of the Complainant, the Opposite Part is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only as compensation in default of which interest @ 18% (eighteen percent) would accrue on the total amount, which would be calculated from the date of payments of the amount till the actual realization of the same.
In furtherance to the order the Opposite Party Bank is directed to take necessary and proper action on the officer concerned of the bank who has executed all such illegal act after proper inquiry, and also the Opposite Party Bank is warned not to repeat such type of attitude towards it’s any customer in future, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party.
The case is pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e on Dt. 08.11.2017 and complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and disposed off accordingly.
S c h e d u l e
House and house site bearing and over Plot No.650/997(six five zero by nine nine seven), A0.10(ten decimals), appertaining to Khata No.242/211(two four two by two one one) of mouza Kadlipali, under the Ps. Barpali and in the Dist of Bargarh.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r (W)
