JASWINDER SINGH Vs. CORPORATION BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common order passed is passed in the two Revision Petitions No. RP/4662/2012 and RP/4663/2012 filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, A.P. (in short, 'State Commission ') in First Appeal No. 1010 of 2012 and First Appeal No. 1011 of 2012, whereby the Hon 'ble State Commission was pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the Respondent/Corporation Bank and dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts in the case are : The facts are similar in both revision petitions. The Respondent/Bank published a notification for the sale of mortgage properties in the public auction on 27.05.2009 at 11.30 a.m. Accordingly as per the auction conditions the petitioners in both Revision Petitions participated the auction proceedings by depositing earnest money of Rs.1,10000/ - each. The Petitioner in RP 4662/2012 succeeded the auction for the Flat No. 8 -7 -114/8/28, 2nd floor at Hussaini Bagh, Golbowli, Old Bowenpally, under Kukatpally Municipality for a sum of Rs.15,05,500/ -. The petitioner in RP No 4663/2012 succeeded the auction for the Flat No. 8 -7 -114/8/28. on first floor flat at Hussaini Bagh, Golbowli, Old Bowenpally, under Kukatpally Municipality for a sum of Rs.16,40,000/ - . Thereafter, the OP asked to remit the balance auction money. On 28.05.2009 the OP issued Xerox documents of the auction property for the scrutiny from the Complainant. The Complainant approached few other Banks for getting loan, who on verification on the title deed stated that the title deeds are defective. The Complainant verified the title deeds from legal consultants who also confirmed about the defects in the title deeds Hence, thereafter the Petitioner approached the Corporation Bank (OP) for getting Housing Loan with respect to said property. But the OP Bank also refused to grant loan without setting any reasons. Therefore, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Regional Office on 30.05.2009 about the defects in the title of a said property and requested the OP to refund the said deposited earnest money of Rs.1,10,000/ -. The OP did not respond but stated that they have already sent a letter by forfeiting investment money paid by the Complainant. But no such letter received by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant finally sent a registered letter on 11.06.2009 for which the OP replied evasively with false and frivolous allegations. Further, the Complainant approached a senior legal Counsel who also being advocate in the panel of banking institutions and took a legal opinion on the said title deed. As per their opinion dated 28.6.2009 the property covered by Registered sale deed is in favour of defaulter of the OP and the powers vested in favour of vendor of the said defaulter from each other. On this ground the Complainant wrote another letter to OP on 09.07.2009 enclosing the said legal opinion and requested to refund the earnest money deposited. But the OP did not complied with the Complainants request. Hence, alleging deficiency of service the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad, A.P. (in short, 'District Forum ') for the relief in the CC No. 810/2009.

(3.) THE District Forum allowed the Complaint after hearing the Counsel for both the parties and perused all material on record and directed the OP to refund the earnest deposit amount of Rs.1,10,000/ - to the Complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the deposit till the date of realization and to pay Rs.2,000/ - towards costs of the complaint.