STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. T BARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2004 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong in Money Suit No. 4(H) of 1999 decreeing a sum of Rs. 4,87,890 with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 1.10.1999 till realization of the decretal amount in full in favour of the respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent, are that he is a registered Valuer of immovable properties with the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and is, presently, carrying on the profession of Consulting Engineer and Valuer and is rendering his services to the Government Department, Nationalized Banks and the general public on payment of professional fees as his professional services are found to be untarnished. On 15.3.1997, the appellant-Bank engaged him for evaluating fair market value of two plots of land belonging to M/s. Eastern Mining and Allied Industries Ltd., Shillong ('the company') for the purpose of creating an equitable mortgage as security for the financial assistance being accommodated to the latter. These lands are situated at Maingmawdar in the West Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya. On completion of the valuation, he submitted his report along with the bill for his professional fee to the appellant-Bank for payment. When no response was received from the appellant, he on 6.4.1998 wrote to the appellant demanding payment of the fee as per the bill submitted by him. The Chief Manager of the appellant-Bank by his letter dated 27.8.1998 informed him that they had already directed the company to settle the payment. According to the respondent, the appellant-Bank was in this manner trying to avoid their liability and resorted to dilatory tactics to that end by needlessly asking the company to authorize them to deduct the amount from their account. It is the case of the respondent that as he was engaged by the appellant-Bank, the responsibility for the payment squarely fell on them inasmuch as they never instructed him in their letter of appointment to realize the fee from the company. It is also the contention of the respondent that the appellant used to make such payment to him for carrying out similar assignments on earlier occasions and that they were also aware of the scale of fees prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for undertaking the job of valuation. As the company was in no way involved in the issue of payment of such fees, he could not legally claim the fee from them. It is claimed by the respondent that the amount of fee payable to him in accordance with the scale of fees prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, is Rs. 3,75,300 and that this amount together with the interest calculated from the date of submission of bill up to 1.10.1999 is Rs. 1.12.590. This, thus, resulted in instituting the money suit for a decree of Rs. 4,87,890 plus interest pendente lite @ 18% per annum with effect from 1.10.1999 till realization of the decretal amount.

(3.) The appellant-Bank contested the suit by filing their written statement of defense. In their written statement, they deny that the suit is not maintainable; that there is no cause of action; that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit; that the suit is improperly valued and proper court-fees not paid; that the suit is barred by limitation as well as by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence; that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the suit is based on misrepresentation of facts. It is averred by the appellant-Bank that the respondent was asked to evaluate the fair market value of the two plots of land belonging to the company on their behalf as the plots were offered as security by them against the loan being taken from the appellant-Bank, but his letter of appointment was not signed by the Chief General Manager of the appellant-Bank but on his behalf and that there was no indication/ offer/agreement for payment of fees by them. According to the appellant-Bank, when a surveyor/consultant/assessor is engaged for the purpose of evaluation like when a lawyer is engaged for legal opinion in respect of properties which are offered for collateral securities, the fees for the services rendered by them are to be paid by the customer/client and not by the Bank, which is why the respondent had in the first instance billed the company. On receipt of the bill dated 31.1.1998, the Bank wrote to the company to settle the fee of the respondent' and a reminder to that effect was also sent to the company on 15.9.1998. The bill was not paid by the Bank as there was no contract for such payment On 28.8.1998 a meeting was held between the officials of the Bank and the company at the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Shillong wherein Shri M.S. Jayaram, the Managing Director of the company had agreed to settle the bill; thus, the onus of payment of the bill lies with the company who offered the plots as collateral securities for the loan obtained by them. This practice is well-known by the respondent, who claimed to be in such profession for a long time. The appellant-Bank denies of having made any payment for similar services rendered by him; it might have paid the fees through Banker's cheque issued by them on the authority of the party to do so. The appellant-Bank, therefore, contends that they are not liable to pay fee or any interest claimed by the respondent.