IMPORTANT POINTS :
(1) Unfair Trade Practice – Inviting bids based on false information regarding the legal status of the vehicle constitutes a clear Unfair Trade Practice.
(2) Repossessed Asset Auctions – Financial institutions auctioning repossessed assets must ensure the assets are legally transferrable before putting them up for sale. If the vehicle is unregistered or the registra-tion is expired, the Bank must either regularize the title in its own name or explicitly disclose the fatal defect, rather than leaving the purchaser to face the Regional Transport Authority (RTO) without statutory documents.
(3) Quantum of Compensation – After 17 years of deprivation, a simple refund is inadequate. The compensation must be realistic and restorative.
(4) Invalidity of “As-Is-Where-Is” Defense against Fundamental Defect – A Bank cannot hide behind the “as-is-where-is” clause to escape liability when it has failed to provide the documents necessary to transfer title or effect registration. While the purchaser may bear the cost of registration, the Bank is obligated to provide the means (documents) to achieve it. Selling a vehicle that cannot be legally registered due to the Bank’s lack of documentation renders the purchase meaningless.

ORDER :

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 complainant participated in a public auction conducted by the Opposite Party - State Bank of India, Tirunelveli Branch, for the sale of a Maruti Omni Van, 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 Rs.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 1% 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) Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and frustration.

c) Rs.50,000/- compensation for non-supply of documents and for keeping the vehicle idle and unused for 172 years.

d) Rs.50,000/- compensation for financial loss and legal expenses.

3. The Opposite Party stated before the District Forum that