M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 813 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 18.04.2012 passed in C.C.No.685/2011 by the District Commission Gwalior)     

CHANDRASHEKHAR CHOUHAN,

S/O LATE SHRI NANDLAL SINGH CHOUHAN,

R/O BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR, BHIND ROAD,

GOLE KA MANDIR, GWALIOR (M.P.).                                                                    …          APPELLANT

Versus

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

GOLE KA MANDIR BRANCH,

47, MURAR ENCLAVE, RESIDENCY,

GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                                                    ….          RESPONDENT.                                                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                             :    PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA                :    MEMBER    

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 19.12.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member.

                   This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (For short District Commission) in C.C.No.685/2011.

2.                Facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainant/appellant are that as per advertisement in daily newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar dated 18.07.2009 he had given a proposal to purchase the plot no.26, situated at village-Maharajpura Ramanna for a sum of Rs.2,71,000/- to the opposite

-2-

party/respondent. The respondent vide letter dated 21.08.2009 to deposit the amount, the appellant therefore deposited Rs.27,000/- and additional sum of Rs.70,000/- with the respondent-bank. It is alleged that when he tried to admeasure the plot, some persons showed their registry claiming that the said plot belongs to them and they had possession over it. The appellant informed the respondent about it and made a request that on getting possession of the plot, he will deposit the remaining amount but the respondent failed to deliver the possession of the said plot to the appellant.  Thereafter the respondent seized the amount deposited by him. Aggrieved appellant filed a complaint against the respondent before the District Commission seeking refund of Rs.97,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with costs Rs.10,000/-.

2.                     The opposite party/respondent resisted the complaint stating that the appellant never tried to get the possession of the plot and when he did not deposit the remaining amount, a notice dated 07.09.2011 (P-6) was given to him to deposit the balance amount and to get the plot registered in his favour.  The appellant failed to deposit the amount, therefore the amount deposited by the appellant was seized by giving notice dated 19.09.2011 (R-1) and that action was taken under the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 

-3-

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act). The specific condition of the sale of property was that the property will be sold on the basis of where it is as it is and the appellant purchaser was agreed to it. Section 34 of SARFAESI Act bars the jurisdiction of this Commission and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

3.                The District Commission vide impugned order dismissed the complaint holding that the action taken by the respondent under the provisions of SARFAESI Act against the appellant cannot be challenged before this Commission.

4.                Challengi