LAWS(NCD)-2019-1-139

ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On January 29, 2019
ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Consumer Complaint No.1835 of 2018 has been filed under Section 21 read with Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs-Bank of Maharashtra and its officials.

(2.) Very briefly, the complainant successfully participated in an e-auction announced on 9.2.2013 and 30.4.2013 by OP-2 and OP-3-Zonal Officer and Chief Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, of two plots, on "As is where is basis" and "As is what it is basis" under Rules 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002. He paid Rs. 25,50,000 and Rs. 26,00,000 for the said plots respectively and received two sale certificates signed by OP-3 on 29.6.2013. According to the complainant, the sale certificates mentioned that the plots were free from all encumbrances. This however was not the case as, after about two years, a case for eviction from the plot of 5,000 sq ft. by one Smt. Kiran Gupta was filed. This case continued till 2016 when on 23.7.2016, the case was dismissed for default by the Court. As for the other plot of 11,000 sq.ft., the complainant later found that a total of 8,176 sq.ft. land was mortgaged with the bank by the previous land owner and after transferring 5,000 sq.ft., only 3,176 sq.ft. of the land remained for sale. However, the OP had wrongly sold 11,000 sq.ft. to the complainant. This amounted to sale of non-existing land, making the entire investment of the complainant worthless. The complainant also submits that in the meantime, as he had invested a huge amount in plant and machinery but could not start his business, his only means of his livelihood, he incurred aheavy loss and suffered huge mental agony. He accordingly through this consumer complaint seeks compensation for pecuniary loss at Rs. 1,86,05,896 and for non-pecuniary loss at Rs. 25 lakhs i.e. total of Rs. 2,11,05,896. He also seeks interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of auction of plots till date of payment by the OPs.

(3.) The first question before us is whether this complaint is at all maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.