Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/448/2019

Punjab National Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Zulekha Khatoon - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S.M. Joshi

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 448 / 2019

 

Punjab National Bank

SIDCUL Branch, Haridwar

through its Branch Manager

…… Appellant / Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Smt. Zulekha Khatoon W/o Sh. Iqbal

R/o Village and Post Office Dhanpura

Tehsil and District Haridwar

…… Respondent / Complainant

 

Sh. S.M. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

None for Respondent

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 05/04/2023

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 226 of 2018; Smt. Zulekha Khatoon Vs. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant – opposite party was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 9,60,000/- to the respondent – complainant along with interest @6% p.a. from 12.09.2018, i.e., the date of institution of the consumer compliant till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the appellant – opposite party (bank) had issued an auction notice in the newspaper with regard to auction of property bearing Khasra No. 286/1/8, Stand, Dhanpura, belonging to one Sh. Naseem S/o Sh. Sharif Ahmed.  In pursuance thereto, the respondent – complainant contacted the bank.  The complainant participated in the auction process and turned out to be highest bidder and the proposed property was sold in her favour for sum of            Rs. 9,60,000/-, which amount stood deposited by the complainant with the bank.  The complainant was told by the bank authorities that there is no litigation pending with regard to the subject property.  However, later on, the complainant was informed by the bank that Sh. Naseem Ahmed has obtained an order against the bank from Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, hence sale deed can not be executed in complainant’s favour.  Upon coming to know about the aforesaid litigation, the complainant demanded refund of the amount deposited by her through letter dated 05.04.2018, which was denied by the bank through their letter dated 13.04.2018.  Thereafter, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.

 

3.       The appellant – bank filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that the complainant had herself participated in the auction proceedings of the property held by the bank under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.  The complainant being the highest bidder, her bid was accepted by the bank.  The borrower – Sh. Naseem Ahmed had filed a Securitisation Application No. 03 of 2018; Sh. Naseem Ahmed and others Vs. Punjab National Bank, before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, wherein by judgment and order dated 26.02.2018, the auction notice dated 21.11.2017 as well as auction dated 26.12.2017 were set aside.  The aforesaid judgment and order has been challenged by the bank before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, wherein the complainant is also a party.  After decision in the matter, sale deed would be executed in complainant’s favour without any delay.  There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

 

4.       After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2019, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – bank has preferred the instant appeal.   

 

5.       We have heard arguments advanced by Sh. S.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.  None appeared on behalf of respondent, although Sh. R.K. Gupta, Advocate has already put in appearance on behalf of respondent on 25.05.2022.

 

6.       It is admitted that auction proceedings with regard to subject property were held by the appellant – bank.  It is also admitted that in the auction proceedings, the complainant was the highest bidder and the auction proceedings concluded in her favour.  It is further admitted that in furtherance of the auction proceedings, the complainant had deposited the entire sale consideration amount with the bank. 

 

7.       It is not in dispute that on account of the litigation by the borrower – Sh. Naseem Ahmed, the sale deed of the property could not be executed by the bank in complainant’s favour, as is pleaded by the bank in their written statement.  In such a situation, when the complainant had sought refund of the amount so deposited by her with the bank towards the sale consideration amount of the property, there was no occasion on the part of the bank to deny the same and the refusal to refund the deposited amount to the complainant, clearly reflects deficiency in service on the part of the bank and the complainant has unnecessarily been forced by the bank to approach the District Commission for getting her legitimate amount refunded and for that, she has to run from pillar to post.

 

8.       For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cogent reasoning and the same does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Commission.  The appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

 

9.       Appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs.        

 

10.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K