Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the State Commission, Tamil Nadu, in First Appeal No. 98 of 2012, arising out of the order dated 18.01.2011 passed by the District Forum, Tirunelveli, in Complaint Case No. 27 of 2010, which was originally filed on 02.03.2010. The Petitioner/complainant is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the State Commission modified and partly allowed the appeal modifying the order of District forum. The present Revision Petition has been filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 64 days. The Petitioner, a senior citizen aged about 72 years, has explained that the delay occurred due to age-related medical issues and unavoidable circumstances beyond her control. Having heard the submissions and being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay, we are inclined to allow the application. Accordingly, the delay of 64 days in filing the Revision Petition is hereby condoned and the Revision Petition is taken on record.
2. The comolainant oarticioated in a oublic auction conducted by the Oooosite which had been repossessed by the bank from a defaulting borrower. The vehicle was auctioned on 29.09.2008, and the complainant became the highest bidder for a sum of ?1,38,000/-. She immediately paid 25% of the bid amount on the same day, and the remaining amount was fully paid on 11.10.2008, after which the bank delivered the vehicle. It was specifically represented and assured by the officials of the Opposite Party that all necessary documents required for permanent registration and transfer of ownership would be provided. Based on this assurance alone, the complainant purchased the vehicle with the bona fide belief that the process of registration could be smoothly completed. Although the Opposite Party provided only the temporary registration certificate, sale certificate, Form 29, Form 30, Form 35 and insurance NOC, it failed to provide essential documents such as Copy of ration card of the previous owner and Photograph and identification proof of the previous registered owner which are mandatory requirements for processing permanent registration before the Regional Transport Authority. Despite repeated visits and written representations dated 23.05.2009 and 03.08.2009, duly acknowledged by the bank, the Opposite Party did not supply the required documents nor responded to the letters. Due to this deliberate and negligent conduct of the Opposite Party, the complainant could not obtain permanent registration and the vehicle was forced to remain idle and unused for more than 11/2 years, resulting in:
i. Complete loss of utility and enjoyment of the vehicle
ii. Monetary loss due to depreciation and deterioration of vehicle condition iii. Severe mental agony, harassment and inconvenience
2.1 The conduct of the bank in withholding essential documents, despite receiving full auction payment, amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant also contended that after receiving full payment, the Opposite Party had no lawful reason to withhold documents and its attitude of ignoring written requests clearly establishes intentional negligence and harassment. The Complainant prayed that District Forum may be pleased to:
a) To direct the Opposite Party (Bank) to obtain permanent registration of the auctioned vehicle (Item No. 15 dated 29.09.2008), by paying all penalties for delay, and to hand over the permanent Registration Certificate.
b) ?1,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and frustration.
c) ?50,000/- compensation for non-supply of documents and for keeping the vehicle idle and unused for 11/2 years.
d) ?50,000/- compensation for financial loss and legal expenses.
3. The Opposite Party stated before the District Forum that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious, and not maintainable either in law or on facts, and is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs. It is admitted that the Opposite Party had issued a Car Tender Auction Sale Notice on 21.09.2008 in the daily newspaper Daily Thanthi, for the sale of a Maruti Omni van repossessed from a defaulting borrower under loan recovery proceedings. The complainant, after fully understanding the auction terms and conditions, voluntarily participated in the auction held on 29.09.2008 and became the highest bidder for a sum of ?1,38,000/-. After making full payment on 11.10.2008, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant strictly on 'as-is-where-is' condition. The Opposite Party emphasized that the auction notice clearly stated that the successful bidder shall not have any claim against the bank regarding the condition of the vehicle, and that all charges relating to name transfer, registration and incidental expenses shall be borne by the purchaser. The Opposite Party further stated that it never assured or undertook to provide personal documents of the previous registered owner such as ration card or photograph, nor promised that the vehicle would be permanently registered immediately. All such allegations are denied as false, baseless, imaginary and without any documentary support. It is contended that at the time of delivery, the Opposite Party had already provided all statutory documents required under law for transfer of ownership, including:
a) Sale Certificate and Delivery Note,
b) Form 29 and Form 30,
c) Form 35 and NOC from the financier, d) Insurance transfer endorsement, and e) Temporary Registration Certificate.
3.1 These documents were issued to the complainant on 12.11.2008, and therefore the Opposite Party fulfilled its obligations completely. The demand for copies of ration card or photo of the previous owner is unjustified, as such documents are not required for permanent registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Bank is not legally entitled to obtain or provide them after repossession. The documents. No correspondence or acknowledgment from RTO has been filed. The allegation that the vehicle remained idle for 1!6 years and became unusable is denied being wholly false and unsupported by evidence. The responsibility for maintenance and registration of the vehicle after delivery solely rests with the purchaser. The Opposite Party alleged that the complainant filed the present complaint only with an intention to extract illegal benefits by claiming exaggerated and speculative compensation amounts without any legal basis. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or any actual loss suffered. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed that the complaint be dismissed in toto with costs.
4. After hearing both parties and perusing the record, the District Forum observed that the opposite party, State Bank of India, had committed deficiency of service by failing to furnish the copy of the ration card and photograph of the previous owner, which were necessary for the complainant, Mrs. Angeline Mohana Johnson, to register the Maruti Omni Van permanently in her name and for running the vehicle legally on road.. Consequently, the Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to provide the said documents to the complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony suffered and Rs. 5,000/- towards the costs of the proceedings, all within two months from the date of the order, failing which the complainant would be at liberty to execute the order under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the District Forum passed the following order dated 18.01.2011:
'6) It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant participated in the auction conducted by them and bid the item No. 15 in the auction list i.e. Maruti Omni Car for Rs. 1,38,000/. The opposite party has furnished temporary registration certificate of the above vehicle and form No. 29 and 35 received from the previous owner and a letter of No Objection Certificate for transfer to the complainant. The complainant would contend, for permanent registration of the vehicle, copy of ration card and photo of the previous owner are required and the opposite party before participating in the auction, assured the complainant that they would give all necessary papers for permanent registration, within a short time but. in spite of, oral demand and letters demanding to furnish the above documents, the opposite party has not furnished the above documents and with the result the complainant could not make permanent registration for his vehicle and could not use it on road. The contention of the opposite party is, that they have never promised the complainant, that they would furnish the required documents, for permanent registration and when the complainant contacted the opposite party over phone, to furnish the above documents, they have directed him, to get the documents directly from the opposite party, after giving necessary acknowledgements. But the complainant did not collect those documents. From the above, it is admitted that the complainant had requested the opposite party to furnish documents namely copy of the ration card and photo of the previous owner Varun raja. The complainant has sent letters to the opposite party under Ex. A 10 requesting Ex. All. The opposite party had not sent any reply for the above notice and the contention of the opposite party that they have requested the complainant to get the above document directly from the opposite party bank after giving necessary acknowledgement for the receipt of the same seems to be borne on afterthought. If really the opposite party had the intention of furnishing the above documents they would have sent reply to the letter Ex.A 10 informing the above contention.
7) The counsel for the complainant relied on a citation in 2009 (IV) CPR Page 113Wherein the Supreme Court has held that where the complainant purchased the vehicle in auction and despite his best efforts relevant papers of the above vehicle were not handed over to him after a long time from the date of auction the-opposite party cannot give any plausible or convincing reasons for not furnishing the documents they are considered at fault in performance of the services which were otherwise required by them which would amount to deficiency in service on their part. By the act of the opposite parties the complainant could not register his vehicle permanently and the vehicle could not be used for more than % years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the award of Rs.25,OOO/-given by the National Commission seems to be very meager and enhanced the award amount to Rs. 1,00,000/- in that case. On the same analogy the opposite party even after receiving the letter Ex. A 10 has not sent any reply to the complainant and if their contention that they have directed the complainant to get the above documents in person is correct they would have sent a reply to the same effect and hence it is presumed that the above contention seems to be the result of an afterthought to escape from their liability. The contention of the opposite party now is that after payment of the entire auction amount on 11-10-2008 the contract between the complainant and the opposite party came to an end and after that the opposite party is not liable to give any documents to the complainant also seems to be not acceptable. The contention of the opposite party is that they have sent intimation to the complainant to collect the above documents in person after giving proper. Acknowledgement is contrary to the arguments now put forth by the Opposite Party side.
8) In the circumstances stated above, we come to the conclusion that the opposite party has committed deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
9) In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to furnish the copy of the ration card and photo of the previous owner to enable the complainant to register the vehicle permanently and to pay Rs. 50,000/-for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute .this order U/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.'
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party (State Bank of India) filed First Appeal No. 98/2012 before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai, challenging the directions to furnish the copy of the ration card and photograph of the previous owner, and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The State Commission examined the facts and records, including the auction notice, sale certificate, temporary registration, Forms 29, 30 & 35, NOC for transfer, and correspondence between the parties. It was observed that the vehicle was purchased in a public auction as an unregistered vehicle and the temporary registration was valid only for one month. The Commission noted that while the Opposite Party had provided some statutory documents, it did not ensure temporary complainant, however, failed to produce evidence that she had applied for permanent registration or that the vehicle remained idle for 11/2 years, and no proof of financial loss was submitted. Considering these facts, the State Commission concluded that the District Forum's directions for furnishing the documents and paying additional compensation were not entirely sustainable. However, recognizing the deficiency in service in assisting with the registration process, the State Commission modified the relief: the Opposite Party Bank was directed to collect the vehicle from the complainant within 15 days, refund the auction amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of payment until refund, and no further compensation would be payable. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. The appeal was thus allowed partly, modifying the District Forum's order. The operative portion of Order of State Commission is reproduced as under:
"25. The opposite party hereby admits the copy of ration card and photo of the previous owner of the car is available with them and directed the complainant to collect them after giving necessary acknowledgment for the receipt of the document. Now they have changed their mind in the appeal that they have stated in their Memorandum of appeal that no legal obligation between the appellant and respondent in the supply of those documents. In their written argument the opposite party stated that 'the respondent/complainant cannot expect to give document which are not available with the appellant/opposite party. Therefore they are not specific in their case whether the documents required by the complainant are available with them at the time of filing their written version or not. If those documents are available with them why they have not supplied and informed in Ex.A4 letter sent to the complainant informing her to collect them from the Appellant's bank. They have taken contrary stand and confusing the party (Complainant) At the same time the complainant also not marked the application presented by her before the registering authority for the registration of the vehicle. On failure of marking an application of registration we cannot come to a definite conclusion that the registration of the vehicle was refused by the registering authority only on the ground of non-production of copy of the Registration Certificate and photo of the previous owner of the vehicle. The complainant alleged in her complaint that she kept the vehicle idle, the vehicle is unused for a period of 1'A years but she has not produced any proof that the vehicle was kept idle as unused for a prolonged period. We also cannot come to a definite conclusion that the vehicle was kept idle as unused as alleged by the complainant. Both the parties have not satisfied in performing their duties in the auction sale and production of the vehicle for registration. The complaint was filed in the year 2010 the vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the public auction in the year 2008. After completion of 13 years the condition of the vehicle will be deteriorated.
26. The counsel for the respondent relied upon 4 citations. The copy of those citations have not enclosed with the written argument. The citations enclosed with the written argument filed on the side of respondent relates to the order pronounced by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission which would not bind this commission. Moreover the citation is also not applicable to the present appeal since the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission has held in a case of discrepancies found in Chassis No. and Engine No. mentioned in the registration certificate. Therefore the above citation is not applicable to the present appeal pending before this commission.
27. Another citation that the order passed by Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in a case titled in Tata Capital Financial services -Vs- Sachin Lohan and another dated 26.05.2017. The above revision petition was disposed with a direction to take back the vehicle on delivery of the vehicle directing the opposite party to refund the amount with infarae-t a# the* n/ OQZ annum iha rlofa af nat/manf /ill fha riafa af rafiinrl ic maria company should either have got the vehicle transferred in its name before putting it in auction or it should be at least provided the sale letter and other documents from the person on whose name the vehicle was registered to the complainant, in order to enable him to get the vehicle transferred in his name. Admittedly either the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner company nor to provide a sale letter from the registered owner of the vehicle there was as obvious defect in the title of the vehicle. As a result the complainant could not get the vehicle transferred in his name he could not have used the vehicle without getting it first registered in his name. Therefore he is entitled to the amount paid by him along with adequate compensation in the form of interest.
28. In this appeal also the opposite party has not taken any steps to get temporary registration in their name prior to put the vehicle on public auction and took different stand that the required documents are available with them, the opposite party is not duty bound to supply those documents. At the same time the complainant also not marked the application . presented for registration of the vehicle to prove her bonafideness and no document to prove the vehicle was kept as unused for a prolonged period. Therefore the complainant is entitled for the amount paid by her along with adequate compensation in the form of interest.
29. The second contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was sold for a lesser price of Rs.1,30,000/- since it has only a temporary registration similar model vehicle was sold for a higher price. The respondent having enjoyed the cheap price for the vehicle cannot cause the burden of getting permanent registration for the vehicle on the appellant bank.
30. Admittedly the vehicle was temporarily registered for a period of one month after lapsing the period of one month the vehicle was to be treated as unregistered vehicle when the unregistered vehicle was put in a public auction necessarily the opposite party should follow the procedure to apply for temporary registration in their name and then only the vehicle should be put in public auction to avoid any complication. Now they have not taken any such steps even to ass/st the complainant for registering the vehicle. The opposite party had not denied that the required documents are not available with them at the same time taking a different stand at different stage of the litigation they are not definite in their stand if those documents are available with them to prove their bonafideness production of documents either before the Learned District Forum or before this commission or they have admitted those documents are not available with them, they are giving evasive reply. The evasive reply of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The Learned District Forum passed the order directing them to furnish the required documents and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. When the appellant is not able to supply the documents passing appropriate order for refund of the amount to the complainant with interest which meets the ends of justice. Therefore the order passed by the Learned District Forum required some modifications and answered accordingly for the point for consideration. In the result the appeal is disposed of with the following directions
i) The vehicle which the complainant had purchased from the opposite party will be collected by the opposite party from the place where it has been parked. The address of the aforesaid place will be communicated to the opposite party bank by Speed post within 15 days from today. All the parts and components of the vehicle should be available in it at the time of its delivery to the opposite party though one or more parts/components may not be functional on account of passage of time.
ii) On delivery of the vehicle the opposite party in terms of this order shall refund the amount of Rs.1,38,000/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the payment till the date on which the refund is made.
Hi) In the fact and circumstances of the case no additional compensation will be payable to the complainant and the parties shall bear their respective costs.'
6. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the State Commission, Circuit Bench, Madurai in FA/98/2012, the Petitioner/Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission on 27.04.2022. The Petitioner/Complainant contended that the State well-reasoned order of the District Forum without any. cogent basis or justification, particularly in reducing the compensation granted for mental agony and in directing refund of the auction amount along with meagre interest of 6% per annum. It is submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate the undisputed material fact that the Respondent-Bank had misrepresented crucial facts in the newspaper advertisement published in Daily Thanthi dated 21.09.2008 regarding the auction of repossessed vehicles (Page no. 57 of vol.1), wherein Item No. 15-a Maruti Omni Van-was falsely described as having temporary registration. The temporary registration certificate, as later discovered by the Petitioner, had expired long before the auction which was valid only for one month from 05.04.2007 to 04.05.2007 (Page no. 56 of vol.1), thereby resorting to misleading representation and unfair trade practice. Deficiency arises also from post-sale failure to reasonably assist to enable the purchaser to legally use the vehicle after registration of the same in her own name. The revisionist took delivery on 11.10.2008. However, despite repeated requests dated 20.10.2008, 23.05.2009 and 03.08.2009 (Page no. 60 & 62 of vol.1), the Respondent-Bank failed to provide the necessary transfer and title documents. The Bank only furnished an expired temporary registration certificate, blank Forms 29, 30, 35, and an insurance transfer letter pertaining to an already expired insurance policy. In the absence of valid title documents, the Petitioner was legally incapable of applying for permanent registration under Rule 57(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which mandates that applications must be accompanied by valid registration and insurance certificates. The failure of the Respondent to provide the promised documents resulted in the vehicle being rendered completely non-usable for more than 13 years, leading to severe financial losses, deterioration of the vehicle, and extreme mental agony. Following Grounds are raised by petitioner/ complainant:
1. The Respondent-Bank misled the Petitioner by falsely stating that the auctioned vehicle had valid temporary registration and assuring supply of essential documents, which were never provided, amounting to unfair trade practice.
2. That the auction sale itself was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and CMV Rules, as the Respondent failed to first transfer the repossessed vehicle to its own name and conducted the sale without ensuring valid insurance and registration formalities, thus making
3. That the State Commission erred in law and on facts in modifying the well-reasoned and justified order of the District Forum without assigning any cogent reasons and by arbitrarily reducing the compensation, despite clear evidence of prolonged financial loss and mental agony suffered by the Petitioner for more than 13 years.
4. That the State Commission failed to consider undisputed losses and hardships such as the cost of hiring alternate transport for 4,799 days and loss of parking space rental for 158 months, and wrongly denied compensation by granting only a refund with inadequate interest of 6% per annum.
5. That the award of interest is irrational, inadequate and contrary to settled principles of compensation, as the Petitioner was deprived of the use and value of the vehicle and the amount paid, and is entitled to a reasonable rate of interest, not less than 18% per annum compounded.
6. The Respondent illegally auctioned the repossessed vehicle without ensuring compliance with mandatory registration procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act, making permanent registration impossible and contradicting the findings of the State Commission.
7. The District Forum, upon detailed appreciation of the evidence, correctly held that the Respondent-Bank had committed serious deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice, directing supply of documents along with compensation of ?50,000/- and litigation costs of ?5,000/-. The Petitioner submitted that the State Commission, while disposing off the Bank's appeal, erred in arbitrarily modifying the District Forum's order and substituting compensation with refund of the bid amount along with inadequate and unreasonable interest of 6% p.a., without assigning any reasons for such reduction and without considering the prolonged hardship suffered by the Petitioner. The State Commission failed to appreciate that refund after more than a decade with nominal interest could never restore the Petitioner to the position she originally was in, particularly when the vehicle could not be used, depreciated completely, and the purpose of purchase was entirely defeated. The Petitioner further contended that the order of the State Commission is contrary to settled principles of law wherein compensation for mental agony, harassment, and unfair trade practice must be actual, realistic, and should commensurate with the gravity and quantum of loss and suffering. The Petitioner further submitted that because she was unable to use the purchased vehicle, she was compelled to hire alternate vehicles for daily transportation needs, incurring expenses of at least ?100 per day for 4 700 Ha/c ffrnm 11 10 200ft tn ftO 11 2021t tntalinn 70 000/- Adriitinnallv otherwise could have been rented at ?1,000 per month; therefore, she claimed ?1,76,960/- (?1,58,000/- for 158 months + ?18,960/- interest @ 12% p.a.) as demurrage for space usage. The Petitioner therefore submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the order of the District Forum restored and enhanced to meet the ends of justice. Petitioner prayed that this Commission may be pleased to:
a. ?5,00,000Z- as compensation for mental agony and frustration;
b. ?11,86,712/- as compensation representing principal plus compound interest for 13 years;
c. ?4,79,900/- towards transportation expenses for hired vehicles;
d. ?1,76,960/- towards rent for parking space;
e. ?2,00,000/- towards litigation cost;
f. Direction to the Respondent to tow away the vehicle upon payment of compensation.
8. We have heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the Bank. On the admitted facts the complainant participated in a public auction held by the Opposite Party (State Bank of India) on 29.09.2008, was the highest bidder for the Maruti Omni (Item No.15) and paid the full consideration of ?1,38,000 on 11.10.2008. It was thereafter the right and reasonable expectation of the petitioner, and corresponding obligation of the respondent Bank, that the necessary documents to enable her to speedily get the vehicle registered in her name are made available, and the obstacles in such registration are expeditiously tackled and removed for which due, reasonable and speedy assistance is provided by the Bank. As it turned out, the statutory period of one month of validity of 'temporary registration' was already over at the time of auction, and therefore the petitioner could not get it registered in her name and presumably if the documents as requested by the petitioner were speedily made available, or after appreciating the hurdle faced by the petitioner, necessary other appropriate steps were taken by the Bank to ensure registration in her name, the petitioner would have been happily using the vehicle today, but that did not happen. On delivery the petitioner received only limited documents like sale certificate, a temporary registration certificate which on the face of the record had already expired, and pre-signed/blank forms (Forms 29, 30, 35) and an insurance transfer endorsement for an expired policy. The complainant has produced correspondence dated 23.05.2009 and 03.08.2009 (Page 60-64 of Vol.1) documents which, on the material before us, were necessary in practice to enable the RTA to process permanent registration in the complainant's name. The Opposite Party's pleadings and its letter 12.11.2008 (Page 57 of Vol.1) itself state that it was trying to obtain the temporary RC from the car dealer and that Forms 29/30/35 were being forwarded; at one stage the Opposite Party admitted that the copy of ration card and photo were available and asked the complainant to collect them after giving acknowledgement. On appeal the Opposite Party adopted a contrary stance, asserting that it had no obligation to supply such documents and that the auction terms were 'as-is-where-is" and that name transfer costs were to be borne by the purchaser. This inconsistent stand is neither explained nor supported by contemporaneous documentary proof on record. Agreeing with the finding of the deficient service, however, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum in an attempt to make the compensation more meaningful and practical. The revisionist challenges such quantum of compensation to be not based on or proportionate to the adamantly deficient service on the one hand and the actual injury, damage and loss suffered by the revisionist on the other.
9. Having considered the entire material on record and having heard the parties, we agree with the petitioner that the quantum of compensation granted by the State Commission is unreasonably low and patently lacks in adequately compensating the revisionist and thus in proportionality. The fundamental fact is that the petitioner has not Ibeen able to validly and legally use the vehicle despite having parted with the consideration before a long period of nearly 17 years now. The hurdle in the use by the petitioner arose because of wrong auction invitation by stating in the advertisement that the vehicle was temporarily registered when in fact it was not validly so registered. The 'temporary' registration had expired within one month. The petitioner approached the Bank multiple times with request for the particular documents which presumably, or likely as informed to her by the registering authority, would have enabled the petitioner to get the vehicle registered in her own name, but the Bank has not taken any positive steps to ensure that the complainant auction participant is able to fructify and lawfully enjoy such fruits of her investment. The respondent Bank even wrote to the petitioner that the attempts to obtain the temporary RC book are being made. However, the consistent insensitivity of the in the final order passed on 18.01.2011 issued simple directions to the Bank to handover the documents enabling her to register the vehicle in her name. However, the Bank, rather than carrying out and getting sensitized towards its obvious duty as pointed out and as held by the District Forum, pleading that it has no obligation to provide any documents as directed by the District Forum because as per the terms and conditions of the auction sale, the costs relating to name transfer were to be borne by the successful bidders, preferred an appeal before the State Commission. We are absolutely at a loss in comprehending as to what could be the conceivable reason or rationale for the respondent bank in not providing the documents as directed by the District Forum namely, the ration card and the photograph of the previous owner of the vehicle, and, in case of difficulty therein, in handholding the complainant and facilitating the registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner to allow her to validly enjoy the vehicle. In our opinion, it is equally too far-fetched for the respondent bank to contend that there is no obligation on the bank to provide any documents or to assist the auction purchaser so as to enable her to get proper vehicle registration. True it is that the vehicle was sold in an auction at relatively low price on "as is where is' basis and that the cost of the registration was to be borne by the purchaser. However, that cannot be deemed to mean that the bank after the auction sale would be entitled to render the purchase for the purchaser wholly meaningless and burdensome. The whole agony of the petitioner arose from the fundamental misrepresentation about the status of the registration of the vehicle which was further compounded by adamant and callous attitude of the respondent bank which continued even after the District Forum rendered a factual finding of deficiency in service which could have been easily ameliorated by the respondent.
10. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that there is a dual and serious deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank firstly in making a misrepresentation and secondly in consistently and adamantly not making any amends so as to allow the petitioner valid registration and rightful enjoyment of the item sold to her. The petitioner had purchased merely a one and a half year old Maruti Omni vehicle in 11.10.2008. A period of more than 17 years has elapsed during which, as rightly submitted by the petitioner, she has not only not enjoyed the vehicle, but has i4-k imnfinn eoooo for norlzinn fho I IColfiCQ obvious mental agony and frustration. We, in this background, have no hesitation in concluding that the compensation by way of refund of the amount deposited with only 6% interest as awarded by the State Commission is commensurate neither with the injury or damage, including the mental agony as stated and suffered by the petitioner nor is it reflective of the nature and depth of real deficiency in service of the respondent. In that scenario, though the petitioner has claimed a huge total compensation of more than Rs.20 lakhs which obviously is excessive, at the same - time, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation to be allowed has to ensure that at least from the date of decision of this Commission, the petitioner would be in a position to acquire and start using an equivalent vehicle of one year age. We quantify such compensation at Rs.5 lakhs. We are also of the opinion that the overall conduct of the respondent including the wholly insensitive attitude and consistently adamant disregard of fundamental obligation of doing needful to provide a meaningful outcome and closure of the transaction entered into by the petitioner, as exhibited by the respondent, requires an award of further exemplary damages to the sum of Rs.2 lakhs, which shall be inclusive of compensation also for all the agony, distress and inconvenience including that for unproductive utilization of the parking space suffered by the petitioner.
11. The total award of compensation thus is Rs.7 lakhs, which we direct the respondent to pay within one month failing which this amount shall bear a simple interest of 9% from the date of this order till the date of payment. The petitioner shall also be entitled for costs of Rs.50,000/-. The respondent shall collect back the old vehicle from the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which the petitioner shall have liberty to dispose of the same without any attached liability.
12. The revision petition is partly allowed.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |