Per Hon’ble DR. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member. 

1)    This is an appeal filed by Syndicate Bank of Ramdaspeth Nagpur against the order dated 20/12/2017 passed by learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/13/545 in which the complaint filed by the complainants Shri Shridhar Nandeshwar and Smt.Prasanna Nandeshwar that was partly allowed and appellants were directed to register the name of complainants on 7/12 extract by cancelling the name of previous owners Mr.Somanis and then execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants, in addition to pay Rs.15,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5000/- for cost of the complaint. Aggrieved by this order the Syndicate Bank and Senior Manager of the Syndicate Bank filed the appeal against this order before this Commission.

2)      Brief facts of this appeal are filed are as follows :-

3)      The original complainants Mr. and Mrs.Nandeshwar who are the respondent in this appeal purchased from appellants two plots bearing Nos.38 and 39 in survey No.38 at Mouza-Ruhi Khairi, District Nagpur in an auction which was arranged by the appellants. Respondents paid all the amount of Rs.5,72,000/- to the Syndicate Bank towards purchase of two plots. The appellants issued letter of authority to the respondents alongwith certificate of sale but did not execute the sale deed.

4)      These two plots were originally purchased by Mr.Shashishekhar Naidu and Smt.Jyoti Naidu from Sai Builder and Developer by registered sale deed on 27/07/2006 and availed loan from the same Syndicate Bank for purchasing these plots. Both the plots were mortgaged with the Syndicate Bank as per the terms and conditions of the loan. Since Naidu’s failed to repay the loan amount the appellants issued notice of auction of both the plots for repayment of loan. The present respondent purchased both the plots in an auction as mentioned in para above. The respondents after auction came to know from Revenue Department that the said plots were already resold by Sai Builder and Developer to Mr.Somani through registered sale deed on 02/05/2009 and his name is registered as owner on 7/12 extract as well as other  relevant documents. Respondents in this appeal filed complaint before the learned Additional District Consumer Forum Nagpur against the Syndicate Bank for unfair trade practice by the Bank and prayed for execution of sale deed by the Syndicate Bank or refund of the amount paid to the Bank with interest @ 24% p.a.

5)      Syndicate Bank defended this complaint before the Additional District Consumer Forum Nagpur by filing written statement and contended in the final hearing before the District Forum that the plots were sold to the complainants in the complaint on the principle of “As Is and Where Is” and after the auction already the sale certificate issued to the original complainants which is authorised document given to the complainants and the Bank has not followed any unfair trade practice. After hearing both the parties and going through all the documents the learned Additional District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the present appellant to register the names of complainant/respondent in this appeal in 7/12 extract after which registered sale deed in the name  of respondent should be executed.

6)      Aggrieved by this order the Syndicate Bank has approached this Commission in the appeal against the order. This appeal is finally heard by this Commission.

7)      Learned advocate for the appellant invited the attention of the Commission to the certificate issued by the bank to the respondent (reference page No.56 of the appeal compilation). As per the learned advocate for the appellant this certificate itself is very authentic document that has given all the authority to the respondents and by submitting the said certificate to appropriate authority, they should be able to register  their names as owners. It was Sai builder and developer who created third party interest by illegal selling of the plots to Mr.Somani when the plots were already under mortgage by Naidu’s with the bank, hence legally it was the ownership of the bank which was transferred to respondent in this appeal by issuing sale certificate. Learned advocate for the appellant further prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum as Syndicate bank has not followed any unfair trade practice.

8)      Learned advocate for respondents Mr.Nandeshwar submitted that before going for the auction of the plots the Syndicate bank has not verified the title of the property (referring to the page No.51 of the appeal compilation) which is 7/12 extract of these two plots that show Mr.Somani’s name as the owner of the plots and this mutation was taken place on 24/02/2010. Further the learned advocate invited attention to the document No.4 on page No.12 which is registered sale deed that was executed by Sai Builder and Developer in the name of Mr. and Mrs.Naidu on 27/July 2006 and also another document No.9 page No.30 which is another registered sale deed, dated 18 July 2009 between Sai Builder and Developer and Rushi Somani for the same plots No.38 and 39. As per submissions of the learned advocate for respondents the Syndicate Bank did not take any steps to execute sale deed of these plots except wrote letter to Tahasildar on 04/11/2017 (reference page No.40 of appeal compilation) regarding the auction of the said plots and ownership transfer. Apart  from this the Syndicate Bank has not taken any legal steps for executing the sale deed. Thus the appellants sold these two plots to respondents without verifying the title which itself is an unfair trade practice by the bank. He referred auction notice published in the news paper for auction of plots on 12/01/2013 (document No.3 page No.11) and published in the Lokmat news paper dated 10/12/2012 and inspite of purchasing plots by paying high price in auction the bank failed to register the sale deed. Thus learned advocate for respondent submitted that the appellants have never tried for completing mutation process which also indicates unfair trade practice. In support of his contention learned advocate for respondent invited the attention of this Commission to ruling reported in III(2017) CPJ 57 (N.C). Syndicate Bank and other……..V/s……Professor K.Vemlesjwara Rap  in which  under similar circumstances successful bidder was declared after the auctioning process but inspite of payment of total amount in time he could not get sale deed executed. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in this appeal held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank in which the bank actually did not verify the area before putting the plots in auction. Thus as per the learned advocate for the respondent this ruling is squarely applicable to the present case to hold bank responsible for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. He prayed for confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum as the same is just and legal. According to him respondents being the senior citizen they have prayed for refund of the amount if it is not possible to execute the sale deed.

9)      We have gone through the judgment and order passed by learned Additional District Consumer Forum Nagpur. Learned Forum has rightly considered all the documents and since the auction was conducted without verifying the property details and mutation, the learned Additional District Consumer Forum directed the Syndicate Bank to register the name of Mr.and Mrs.Nandeshwar in 7/12 extract and then execute the sale deed. It is specifically noted that as such the bank has not followed any unfair trade practice but since in the auction the plots were sold to the complainants it is the responsibility of the bank to legally execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants. We don’t find any illegality in the order and pass the following order.

//ORDER//

i.        Appeal is hereby dismissed with cost to quantified to Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within two month from the receipt of copy of this order.

ii.       Copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.