SYNDICATE BANK Vs. PROFESSOR K. VENKESHWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the appellants. Syndicate Bank & Ors. against the order dated 7.12.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission ) passed in CC No. 53 of 2014.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 24.2012, the appellant No. 3 has published auction notice in the daily newspaper Indian Express, Sakshi, having circulation in the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as throughout India, for sale by inviting Tenders under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 of immovable property mortgaged with Machhlipatnam branch of Syndicate Bank for recovery of secured debts under "As is where is basis and no complaint basis" with respect to property which was open plot near D.No. 4/843, Rajupet, Machhlipatnam, Krishna District ad-measuring 1103 sq. yards, for the liability of M/s. Subhani Engineering Works through the authorised officer, Syndicate Bank, i.e. the appellant No. 2 herein. The date and time of the sale was fixed as 20.5.2012 from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. As per the terms and conditions, the reserve price of the sale was kept as Rs. 20,00,000. The tenders were invited with EMD @ 10% of the reserve price i.e. Rs. 2,00,000 refundable without any interest to unsuccessful bidders. As per the publication, the bidders were allowed the inspection of the property by 28.5.201 On 29.5.2012, as per the schedule, the auction was conducted and the respondent was declared as successful bidder in the auction. The total bid amount was Rs. 29:55 lacs and upon receipt of the 25% of the bid amount, the appellant No. 2 has issued interim sales certificate dated 29.5.5.2012 to the respondent. On 30.5.2012, the respondent has raised objection that the available extent of the plot was only 832 sq. yards as against 1103 sq. yards. Upon the said objection of the respondent, the Bank had conducted survey through V.R. Consulting Engineer, Machhlipatnam and as per report submitted by them, the area of the plot was confirmed to be 832 sq. Yards only and not 1103 sq. yards as mentioned in the document. In the month of June, 2012, balance amount was paid by the respondent. The auction proceedings were cancelled by the Bank vide letter dated 8.10.2012 and the amount of Rs. 29,55,000 was refunded to the complainant by way of demand draft No. 316883 which was duly received and encashed on 13.10.201. Later, the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman, however, vide letter dated 14.12012, the claim of the respondent was rejected. On 3.3.2014, the complainant has filed complaint before the State Commission vide CC No. 53/2014. The State Commission vide order dated 7.12015 allowed the complaint of the respondent thereby directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 1,15,584 towards the interest @12% p.a. on amount of Rs. 29,55,000 from 16.2012 to 110.201 In addition to this a sum of Rs. 10,000 was ordered to be paid towards the litigation expenses and further a sum of Rs. 10 lacs towards compensation for mental agony was awarded to the respondent.

(3.) Hence the present appeal.