Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 846 (RAJ)

HDFC Bank Limited v. Ganpatram S/o Hariram

2023-04-18

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and (A) the order dated 24.06.2019 [Annex.7] passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner passed in Application No. 163/ 2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and Circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, in the year 2015, one Mr. Gopal Ram approached the petitioner-Bank to obtain a loan for purchasing a vehicle bearing model name TATA 4018 (after purchase, registered as RJ 07 GC 2551). In connection with the same, a loan agreement dated 13.03.2015 was entered into between the petitioner-Bank and Mr. Gopal Ram, whereby the aforementioned vehicle was hypothecated in favour of petitioner-Bank. It was specifically agreed under the agreement that in the event of failing to pay the stipulated monthly installments within the prescribed time or in the event of default, the agreement would be terminated, and Mr. Gopal Ram would be liable to hand over the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner-Bank and pay all the installments alongwith all other charges due as per the terms of the agreement. As per the averments made in the petition, since Mr. Gopal Ram made persistent defaults with regard to payment of the installments, the petitioner-Bank became entitled to possession of the vehicle; accordingly, the possession of the vehicle was taken over by the petitioner-Bank. 2.1 After getting possession of the vehicle, an auction was conducted to sell the said vehicle on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis. In the said auction, the respondent was declared as highest bidder with a bid amounting to Rs.16,70,011/-. As a result of the bid amount being paid and execution of deed of indemnity, the vehicle was handed over to respondent on 17/18.02.2018. The petitioner-Bank also handed over all the documents pertaining to registration of the said vehicle to the respondent for issuance of a Fresh Registration Certificate. Further, the representation was made by the petitioner-Bank before the District Transport Officer (DTO), Bikaner, but the said officer passed an order dated 05.06.2018, whereby the application for issuance of a Fresh Registration Certificate was rejected. Further, the representation was made by the petitioner-Bank before the District Transport Officer (DTO), Bikaner, but the said officer passed an order dated 05.06.2018, whereby the application for issuance of a Fresh Registration Certificate was rejected. 2.2 The respondent thereafter, moved an application under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner. 2.3 The learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner (Rajasthan) after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 24.06.2019 and directed the petitioner-Bank to get the said vehicle registered with concerned registering authority in the name of the respondent within one month thereafter, and also to pay to the respondent interest @ 6% p.a. on the purchase amount from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 29.01.2018. It was further directed that the petitioner-Bank shall pay an amount of Rs. 16,70,011/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase of the vehicle along with Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs to the respondent, in case of failure to get the vehicle registered in one month. 2.4 Aggrieved by the above mentioned order, the present petition has been preferred claiming the aforequoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank submitted that the vehicle in question was sold on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis and under the deed of indemnity executed by the respondent, it was his duty to get the vehicle registered with the concerned registering authority. 3.1 Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swan Gold Mining Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2015) 5 SCC 739 , wherein it was held that once the parties have arrived at a concluded contract and acted on the basis of the terms and conditions mentioned therein, then substituting new terms in the said contract by an arbitrator or by the court would be erroneous or illegal. 3.1.1. It was thus asserted that in the present case, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat vide the impugned order rewrote the terms and conditions of the said deed of indemnity, which is a contract between the parties herein, and thus, the same was done as per the well established principle of law. 3.1.1. It was thus asserted that in the present case, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat vide the impugned order rewrote the terms and conditions of the said deed of indemnity, which is a contract between the parties herein, and thus, the same was done as per the well established principle of law. 3.2 It was submitted that the petitioner-Bank cannot get the vehicle registered within one month (time mentioned in the impugned order) as it clearly lies within the domain of the concerned transport authority to issue the requisite registration certificate of the vehicle. In furtherance, learned counsel submitted all since efforts had been made by petitioner-Bank in regard to the required registration of the vehicle. 3.2.1 It was further asserted that the petitioner-Bank had filed an appeal before RTO, Bikaner and the same was allowed by the RTO vide order 07.08.2019 directing the DTO, Bikaner to decide the matter within 15 days thereafter. 3.3 Learned Counsel further asserted that the petitioner-Bank had not concealed any material fact at the time of the sale in question, and that, the respondent was well aware of the risk of delay in the process of transfer of the vehicle. In furtherance, it was submitted that the registering authority had denied the issuance of Fresh Registration Certificate solely on the ground that Form 35 was attached along with the application for the issuance of Fresh Registration Certificate; the said Form 35 was attached by the respondent himself, and thus, petitioner-Bank should not be held liable for denial of issuance of Fresh Registration Certificate. 3.4 Further submissions were made that the respondent had approached the learned court below with unclean hands while concealing the material fact that the vehicle had been sold on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis, and that, the respondent himself had filed the application with the registering authority for issuance of fresh registration certificate. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114 , Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 . 4. (2010) 2 SCC 114 , Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 . 4. On the other hand, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Bank, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner-Bank, and that, the respondent had purchased the vehicle on 29.01.2018 and gave the full payment to the petitioner-Bank, but till date, the requisite registration of vehicle has not been issued in favour of the respondent. 4.1 It was asserted that the petitioner-Bank is simply trying to linger on the registration process; due to the non-registration of the vehicle, the respondent has been unable to use the vehicle since 2018, resulting into an irreparable loss to the respondent. 4.2 It was submitted that after the necessary payments, though the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the respondent, but transferring of the said vehicle was done in the name of Mr.Gopal Ram and Form No.36 was signed along with it; the same should have been done in the name of the respondent herein. 4.3 It was also submitted that later on the petitioner-Bank sent a letter dated 18.07.2018 to RTO that Form No. 36 had been sent in the name of Mr. Gopal Ram; the respondent herein had made a complaint before the petitioner-Bank, while stating that since the time of purchase, the vehicle could not be used due to the registration issue, and on 30.07.2018 requested to get the said vehicle transferred in his name, but the said request was turned down. 4.4 It was also submitted that the respondent had yet to receive the amount awarded by the learned court below. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with judgments cited at the bar. 6. This Court observes that the vehicle bearing model name TATA 4018 (registration no. RJ 07 GC 2551) was sold in auction by the petitioner-bank on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis and the same was purchased by the present respondent being the highest bidder placing a bid of Rs. 16,70,011/- for the said vehicle. The petitioner-Bank made a representation before the DTO for issuance of a Fresh Registration Certificate, but the same was denied. RJ 07 GC 2551) was sold in auction by the petitioner-bank on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis and the same was purchased by the present respondent being the highest bidder placing a bid of Rs. 16,70,011/- for the said vehicle. The petitioner-Bank made a representation before the DTO for issuance of a Fresh Registration Certificate, but the same was denied. In the meantime, the respondent moved an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat that due to the negligence on part of the petitioner-Bank, till date, the registration certificate had not been issued in the name of the respondent herein. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat vide the impugned order 24.06.2019 had drawn the conclusion in favour of the respondent. 6.1 This Court further observes that the petitioner-Bank, as recorded in the impugned order passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, has accepted that the NOC granted by it was done in the name of Mr. Gopal Ram. Thereafter, a letter was sent to the Regional Transport Authority by the petitioner-Bank that earlier the name of the vehicle owner (defaulter of the petitioner-Bank) was given and for the disposal of the seized vehicle by lawful process, a Fresh Registration Certificate needs to be issued. Hence, it is clear that the delay in the required registration of the vehicle had occurred due to petitioner-Bank’s own negligence. 6.2 This Court further observes that since the vehicle is not registered in the name of the respondent herein, therefore, the same could not be used since its purchase in the year 2018. The purchase amount is also not being returned to the respondent, instead the respondent is incurring expenses for the care and maintenance of the vehicle. 6.3. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner do not render any assistance to his case. 7. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court, while upholding the impugned order passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.