REGIONAL MANAGER, RIICO vs RAJ KUMAR SETIA

HEARD. In a public auction held on 18.3.1989, by the appellant for sale of certain shops, including Shop No. 35, at its industrial area in Sriganganagar, the respondent purchased the aforesaid Shop No. 35 for Rs. 9,450/-. As per terms and conditions of the auction sale, the higher bidder was required to pay 25% of the bid money at the time of fall of hammer and the balance amount of 3/4th of the total consideration was to be paid by him within a week of the holding of the auction. It is the undisputed position between the parties that the respondent had duly deposited 25% of the sale consideration at the fall of the hammer. In order to pay the balance within a week, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in cash and the remaining part of the balance amounting to Rs. 2,192/-, through a cheque dated 30.3.1989. The cheque was however dishonoured. Thereafter the case of the appellant was that despite issuing notices to the respondent by it on 4.5.1989 and 1.1.1990, the respondent did not pay/deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2,192/-. Therefore, the sale of the shop in his favour was cancelled on 12.3.1992 as per terms and conditions of the sale.

THE facts of the case further are that on 27.3.1992, 13.1.1963 and 16.9.1993 the respondent moved applications requesting the appellant to receive Rs. 2,192/- from him towards the sale consideration of the shop in question. THE appellant however did not receive the aforesaid amount on the ground that the sale in favour of the respondent had already been cancelled by the authorities concerned on 12.3.1992. Based on above mentioned facts, the respondent filed his complaint before the D.F. at Sriganganagar and alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant on the ground that since he had ever been ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs. 2,192/- but the appellant did not accept the same and that no information regarding cancellation of the sale on 12.3.1992 was given to him.

The D.F. vide its order under appeal allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to receive a sum of Rs. 2,192 from him towards the balance amount of sale consideration of the shop in question and to deliver the possession thereof to him. Costs of Rs. 500/- were awarded with Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental agony. Aggrieved against such order of the D.F., the appellant has preferred this appeal.

THE facts as stated above were not challenged before us. It is evident that the terms and conditions of the auction sale were that the highest bidder shall have to deposit th of the bid money on the fall of the hammer and the balance amount, being 75% of the sale consideration, within a period of 7 days from the date of holding the auction. It is not in dispute that although the respondent had duly paid 25% of the sale consideration on the fall of the hammer and he did pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- also plus a cheque for Rs. 2,192/- to the appellant on 30.3.1989. THE auction had taken place on 18.3.1989 and the aforesaid amount and cheque were delivered to the appellant by the respondent beyond the prescribed period of 7 days. THE appellant could have then refused to receive the amount. But since it accepted the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,000/- in cash and also the cheque for Rs. 2,192/- and further delivered the same to his Banker for collection of the money, it may reasonably be inferred that the appellant had waived his right not to accept the balance amount from the respondent and thus had condoned the delay. But it is an undisputed position in this case that the cheque delivered by the respondent to the appellant was dishonoured by respondent''s Bank. THEreafter the appellant appears to have issued two notices on 4.5.1989 and 1.1.1990 to the respondent but no reply was allegedly received by it from him. Issue of such letters by the appellant to the respondent may exhibit an effort on the part of the appellant to continue the contract between the parties and not to rescind/cancel/terminate such a contract after the cheque issued by the respondent had been dishonoured by his Banker. Anyway, the sale made by the appellant in favour of the respondent was cancelled on 12.3.1992. At this stage the learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that the appellant had never informed the respondent of having cancelled the sale made in his favour. Even if we accept this version, it was the duty of the respondent to have known as to what happened to the payment allegedly made by him to the appellant through his cheque for Rs. 2,192/-. It is expected of any sane/prudent buyer who is legitimately interested in the passing of the title of the immovable property to him, to have known as to whether the consideration paid by him has been properly adjusted or not. THE respondent could have enquired from the appellant about the state of affairs and required them to issue the relevant documents evidencing the title of the property to him. But that was not done. Instead after having moved applications on 27.3.1992, 13.1.1993 and 16.9.1993 he opted to file the complaint on 7.3.1995. THE facts clearly speak that the complaint so filed by the complainant was clearly time-barred. In view of the above we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated above the appellant had not rendered deficient services to the respondent in cancelling the sale on 12.3.1992. Added to it the complaint was also filed after the expiry of period of limitation under Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act).

HOWEVER, since the disputes under the provisions of the Act are required to be decided on principles of natural justice, such principles require us to direct the appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent with interest @ 9 p.a. from 15.3.1992 within a period of 3 months failing which the rate of interest would get enhanced to 12% p.a. from 15.3.1992. We order accordingly. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed in the manner stated above. Cost on parties throughout. Appeal allowed.