PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

          Consumer Complaint No. 149/2023.

Chandan Saha, Aged about 43 years,

S/O- Badriprasad Saha,

R/O-Mohanty Pada, Badbazar, Ps-Town,

PO/City/Dist-Sambalpur,Odisha-768001.                     ….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-

Punjab National Bank,

Represented through its authorized officer, Zonal Sastra Centre,

Pokhariput, Plot No. J/3, Revnue Plot No. 1561(P), Khata No. 1152,

Jagmara, Bhubaneswar-751030, Odisha.                      …………........Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. P.P.Panigrahi, Adv.
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. Rajesh Kumar

Date of Filing:27.09.2023,Date of Hearing :16.01.2024,Date of Judgement :20.02.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant intended to purchase a land of mouza. Sambalpur Town, Unit No. 10 , Durgapali Dist-Sambalpur, Sambalpur Development Authority plot NO. 356(P) Khata No. 233/1- Ac 0.076 (3336 Sq ft) from the O.P. for a consideration of Rs, 13.30 lakhs as per sale certificate dated 27.08.2019. The financing Bank was Oriental Bank of Commerce later on renamed as Punjab National Bank sold the land under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 under SARFAESI Act. After receipt of sale consideration the O.P. Could not register the sale deed in favour of Complainant inspite of repeated request.

The O.P. granted a commercial loan to one Dharanidhar Mohanty on a Sambalpur Development Authority. (SDA) lease hold property and vide letter dated 20.09.2022 the S.D.A. disclosed that NOC No. 2908/SDA dated 15.01.2016 issued in favour of Dayanidhi Mohanty is totally forged. The bank has issued commercial loan in the name of Sri. Sri. Sweets firm which violated the allotment and lease deed conditions.

When the O.P. not registered the sale deed and fraudulently mis-represented the facts, suppressed the truth complaint was made before Reserve Bank of India. Taking the plea of Covid situation the O.P. misled R.B.I. and the R.B.I. closed the complaint under clause 16(2) (a) of the Reserve Bank integrated Ombudsman scheme, 2021 liberty was granted to Complainant to approach any other Forum/Court/Legal authority vide letter dated 06.10.2022. The O.P. came with a refund proposal with R.B.I. During that period the R.B.I. came to know the real reason for non-registration and lapses of O.P. The O.P. was directed vide letter dated 24.03.2023 of the R.B.I. to refund the consideration amount to the Complainant.

Sambalpur town became a city and market value of land has increased. The O.P. is not ready to pay the present market value. The O.P. is not fair, just and deficient in its service and committed unfair trade practice. Accordingly, liable to compensate the Complainant.

2. The O.P. after appearance through advocate Rajesh Kumar not filed any version nor appeared at the time of hearing. Accordingly, after perusal of documents filed and submission of learned counsel Sri. Panigrahi following observations are made.
3. The Complainant relied on the following documents.

1. Sale Certificate dated 27.08.2019.
2. Letter No. 653 dated 20.09.2023 of Sambalpur Development Authority.
3. Letter of closure dated 06.10.2022 of the R.B.I./C.M.S.-N 20223002799/2023.
4. E-mail correspondence letter dated 24.03.2023 of R.B.I.
5. No dues certificate issued to M/S Pratibha Bharati Pattanaik dated 30.08.2023.
6. Valuation report dated 27.09.2023 of Er. Srikanta Kumar Panigrahi.

4. From sale certificate dated 27.08.2019 it reveals that S.D.A. plot NO. HIG -16, revenue plot No. 356(p), Khata No. 233/1, 0.076 decs of mouza-Durgapali, Dist Sambalpur was sold by the Authorised officer of O.P. Bank to the Complainant for Rs. 13,30,000/- under rule 9(6) of the Security Interest(Enforcement Rules, 2002. The property was auctioned properly of M/S Sri. Sri Sweets. From letter dated20.09.2022 it reveals that one Dharanidhar Mohanty was permitted vide letter No. 2584 SDA 05.12.2015 to mortage the property and availing loan. The O.P. Bank has granted commercial loan in the name of M/S Sri Sri Sweets, a firm and violated the terms of the allotment and lease deed condition. The SDA Authority further certified that letter No. 2908/SDA dated 15.01.2016 is totally forge. From the very documents it is clear that finance was made to M/S Sri Sri Sweets without proper examination of security land documents. The O.P. utilized the power under SARFAESI Act, 2002 made auction sale, entered into agreement with the Complainant but failed to perform its part of contract, could not register the sale deed infavour  of the Complainant immediately after the issuance of sale letter dated 27.08.2019,on the plea of Covid-19 situation.

We are not inclined to discuss the correspondences made by R.B.I. as in mail the complaint was closed and later decided to refund the consideration amount of Rs. 13,30,000/- vide letter dated 06.10.2022 and 24.03.2023 respectively by RBI. Further no dues certificate was issued on 30.08.2023 to Ms Pratibha Bharati Pattanaik. It is true that dispute arose firstly when no registered sale deed was executed and secondly when R.B.I. suggested to refund of consideration amount to Complainant by the O.P. Complainant not agreed on the then market price/auction value. This is the basis of dispute.

Knowingly or unknowingly mortage of the property made, auction made and when issues relating to registration of sale deed came the O.P. informed the Sambalpur Development Authority about the auction sale. S.D.A. categorically refused the grant of any permission. This Commission is only concerned with the deficiency in service. The O.P. agreed to register the sale deed but failed to do so. Non performance of contract amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P. The Complainant is least concerned about the conditions precedent behind the status of land, as an auction purchaser, the Complainant not only sustained financial loss but also harassed by the O.P. Non execution of registered sale deed in time after receiving consideration also amounts to unfair trade practice.

Relating to purchase value of Rs. 13,30,000/- the O.P. admitted the receipt of payment and at present value liable to pay the same amount. The valuer submitted the value of land as Rs. 57,00,000/-. The said amount to be paid by the O.P. to the Complainant. For harassment and for redressal the Complaint is running pillar to post. The Complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses.

Accordingly, it is ordered:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed against the O.P. Bank, Punjab National Bank. The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 57.00 lakhs present market value of the property to the Complainant within one month of this order. In case of non payment the amount will carry 12% interest w.e.f. date of filing complaint till realisation. Further the O.P. is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20^th day of Feb. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.