Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/104

Sri Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Dy. General Manager, HUDCO - Opp.Party(s)

Birendra Prasad

31 May 2019

ORDER

Complainant Amit Kumar filed this case with a claim of Rs. 6,41,600/- (Six Lac Forty One thousand Five Hundred) with interest, compensation for price escalation of real estate of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Fie Lac), compensation for mental harassment of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Six Lac), compensation Of Rs. 1,25,000/- ( One Lac Twenty Five Thousand) toward income tax with interim order to O.P. not to dispose off the property.

2          The case of the complainant, in short, is that the O.P. HUDCO, Patna Office, issued an auction notice of the property Khata no. 62, Plot No. 170 situated at Nand Lal Chapra, Patna against a loan for recovery.

            Complainant, having got information from D.G.M., has participated in the bid process and won the property on 24-04-2016 through O.P. No.2 “Nulinternet”. He deposited 25% of Rs 6,41,600/- (Six Lac Forty One Thousand Six Hundred) and rest Rs. 4,54,000/- ( Four Lac Fifty Four Thousand) Through NEFT on 27-06-2016. Complainant had to pay rest amount of  75% till 11-07-2016.

            Complainant applied housing loan to deposit rest of the bid amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Twenty Lac). The bank conducted enquiry and sought legal opinion and it comes to the knowledge that in connection of the bid property a Title Suit was pending in sub judge XI at Patna. The Loan was not sanctioned.

            Complainant requested to O.P. HUDCO to withdraw the case which the O.P. denied.

            Thus, in the above circumstance, complainant failed to deposit the rest amount of the bid.

            Thus, O.P. HUDCO has concealed the facts of litigation and suppressed the fact and thus O.P. NO.1 is negligent and deficient in proper service.

            The cause of action arose on 24-04-2016 at Bokaro when the complainant, through O.P. No.2 Nulinternet, won the auction.

            A legal notice was also sent to the O.P. No.1 but no reply.

3          Complainant has filed the following documents in support which are

            Anx-1- Copy of receipt of net surfing charge of Nulink Internet

              at Bokaro.

            Anx-2- Copy of e-mail dated 07-09-2016

            Anx-3- Copy of letter of O.P. No.1 dated 29-08-2016 for failing

Rs. 6,41,500/-

            Anx-4- Copy of the Advertisement dated 17-05-2016

            Anx-5- Copy letter dated 15-07-2016 of the complainant to O.P. No.1

            Anx-6- Copy letter dated 13-07-2016 of O.P. No.1

            Anx-7- Copy letter dated 08-7-2016 of the complainant.

            Anx-8- Copy letter dated 08-07-2016 of S.B.I. to The Complainant.

            Anx-9- Copy letter dated legal notice dt. 28-07-2016 to O.P. No.1

Three witnesses Rama Nand Bhagat, Amit Kumar and Devikilal Nayak were Examined on affidavits.

4          O.P. No. 2 M/s Nulink Internet appeared and filed W.S. It is stated that there is no cause of action against the O.P. as there is no connection in the auction bid between the complainant and O.P. No.1 Hence, The case is not maintainable.

5          O.P. No.1 HUDCO appeared and filed W.S. it is admitted that the complainant participated actively in the auction bid of the property in question which was mortgaged against a loan and won the auction. It is also admitted that complainant has deposited 25% of EMD Rs. 6,41,500/- (Six Lac Forty One thousand Five Hundred)  and failed to deposit rest of the amount 75% of total amount of bid in time and according to the terms and condition and amount was forfeited.

            It is further stated that the complainant has raised a false case regarding concealment of fact which is denied because the complainant himself come to office and collected  information of the property and after being satisfied, he entered into the bid process. It is also submitted that O.P. No.1 being authorized under SARFAEST Act to recover dues of secured creditor put the property of Sri Ashok Prasad property in auction, to recover loan.

            It is also submitted that the forum does not have territorial jurisdiction and the case is liable to be dismissed on this score. It is also submitted that O.P. does not provide any service, hence the complainant is not a consumer and dispute is not a consumer dispute.

            It is submitted that complaint is misconceived and only way available to the complainant to file appeal before Debt Recovery Tribunal.

6          O.P. No. 1 has also filed documents in support as well as examined two witnesses on affidavit.

FINDINGS

7          We perused the record, facts of the complaint and the written statements filed by the two O.Ps.

            At the foremost level O.P. No.1 is situated at Patna and O.P. No.2 is only a Internet Surfing business at Bokaro. O.P. No.2 has no connection with bid auction of the property. Therefore, this forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. No Cause of action arose at Bokaro.

8          Therefore, we hold that this case is not maintainable at this forum on account of territorial objection. So, without going into the merit, this case is hereby, dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file the case at the appropriate legal platform available to him within two months from the date of this order.

            O/c is directed to deposit the record in the record Room.