Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/148/2018

Mukesh Vermani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	148/2018
Date of Institution	:	07.03.2018
Date of Decision	:	20/07/2018

 

                                                           

                                                                       

Mukesh  Vermani s/o Sh.R.P.Vermani aged about 49 years r/o H.No.20, Neelkanth Enclave, Baltana,Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar(Mohali), Punjab

                                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.         The General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, SCO No.84-91, Second Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

2.        AGM, Punjab and Sind Bank, SCO No.76, Sector 5,Panchkula.

3.        Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, SCO No.701, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:             SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:            Complainant in person.

                                    Sh.Jagdish Bector, Adv. for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle make Mahindra Verito DX4 bearing registration No.PB-65X-9502 in e-auction vide sale certificate dated 21.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.2.85 lacs. He paid Rs.1.85 lacs in cash and remaining amount was got sanctioned as loan from the OPs Bank.  At the time of delivery, the OPs have supplied all the documents except RC of the vehicle which were assured to be given at later stage as and when the remaining formalities were to be completed or otherwise it was to be taken back from the original vehicle owner.  It has further been averred that when he requested the OPs to provide the copy of the RC, they put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  On one time, they said that the RC  might be in traffic challan and thereafter when he asked to give the details of the challan so that it could be paid then the OPs did not give the same.  Even the complainant asked the OPs regarding the whereabouts of the original owner so that he could collect the RC from him but to no effect.  According to the complainant, he paid entire loan of the vehicle to the OPs but the RC was not delivered to him despite writing the letters dated 04.07.2017 and 26.07.2017. He also got served a legal notice dated 25.01.2018 upon the OPs but to no effect.   It has further been averred that the OPs have neither got the RC prepared/transferred in his name nor supplied the original RC to him.           Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.             In their written statement, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case have stated that the OPs being the secured creditor to realize the dues from the borrowers namely Smt.Binder Pal Kaur and Sh.Jasbir Singh whose account became NPA and was not available on the address with the Bank and become absconder and so the Bank took the actual possession of the car in question which was hypothecated in its favour under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 after serving notice u/s  13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and by inviting tenders from public in the leading newspaper and by holding public auction, sold the car in question  in e-auction to the complainant with the condition “as is where is basis and what is basis”.  It has been stated that OP No.3 had made known to the bidder i.e. the complainant that RC was not available and he had bought the car in whatever condition it presently exists and that the buyer had accepted the item with all faults whether or not immediately apparent.  It has further been stated that since the complainant knowingly purchased the car without RC so the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service or any accountability against him. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.             We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
4.             The grouse of the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle make Mahindra Verito DX4 bearing registration No.PB-65X-9502 vide sale certificate dated 21.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.2.85 lacs in e-auction from the OPs but the original registration certificate of the vehicle in question was not supplied to him despite his repeated requests, enabling him to get it registered in his name and to ply the same on the road.
5.              On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the complainant did purchase the vehicle in question in an e-auction with the condition “as is where is basis and what is basis”.   It has been contended that as is denotes that the seller is selling and the buyer is buying an item in whatever condition it presently exists and that the buyer is accepting the item “with all faults” whether or not immediately apparent and they made the complainant understand that the RC of the vehicle is not available with the bank.
6.             From the above stand of the OPs, one thing is established on record that the OPs are not in possession of the RC of the vehicle in question and the same was sold to the complainant without its RC. Taking this into account, we find no substance in the defence put forth by the OPs because the complainant is not agitating about the condition or performance of the vehicle in question and on the contrary, he is only seeking direction to the OPs to supply him the original copy of the RC to enable him to get the ownership of the vehicle transferred in his name and to ply the same on the road as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.  
7.             No doubt, the sale notice contained the clause 'as is where is and whatever there is basis', but the OPs cannot to take shelter under the said clause because it relates to the physical condition or performance of the vehicle only.   The said clause, by no means, declares that the OPs do not have the ownership documents of the vehicle in question to be sold by them to the complainant.  Furthermore, it has not been mentioned in the public notice that the vehicle to be sold is without having registration certificate and other necessary documents.  Therefore, the stand taken by the OPs to cover-up their misdeeds and illegal acts, is held to be a clever attempt made, not only to befool the complainant/consumer, but also to mislead the Forum.   
8.             The OPs have failed to clarify in which capacity they have sold the vehicle in question to the complainant, if they do not possess the ownership documents thereof.  The OPs by selling the vehicle in question and collecting the price thereof from the complainant, without supplying the ownership documents to him, has decreased his status to a caretaker of the vehicle, because he will not be able to ply it on road without getting it transferred in his name.  
9.             The aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs not only amount to deficiency in service but also indulgence of unfair trade practice on their part, which has not only caused financial loss to the complainant, but also caused him immense mental agony, physical harassment and thrusting him with unwarranted litigation. 
10.             In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under:-

1. To get the new registration certificate of the vehicle, in question, in the name of the complainant in the concerned Registering and Licensing Authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which they shall be liable to refund the amount so received in e-auction towards the sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its receipt till realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as litigation expenses.

11.             This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to initiate the proceedings against the OPs under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12.             Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20/07/2018

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER