B.M.BHANUMATHI SINGH v. BRANCH M

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32680-DB WP No. 673 of 2024 HC-KAR 1ST PHASE, 2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 076.

#2. THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD., 9TH FLOOR, ANTRIKSH BHAVAN, 22 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEAR CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI DATED 07.08.2023 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.34/2021 AT (ANNEXURE-B) AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED ON 16.06.2020 BY THE STATE COMMISSION IN COMPLAINT NO.118/2017 AT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

#2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32680-DB WP No. 673 of 2024 HC-KAR a. Issue a writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing or setting aside the Order passed by the National Consumer dispute Redressal Commission at New Delhi dated 07.08.2023 in First Appeal No.34 of 2021 (Annexure B) against the order passed on 16.06.2020 by Complaint No.118 of 2017 (Annexure A). the State Commission b. Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus by directing the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to deposit the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- according to the Demand Draft (Pay order 4) 735754: Rs.40,00,000 along with 18% interest till the disposal of this Petition. c. Grant any further or such relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case."

#3. By the impugned order of the State Commission dated 16.06.2020, it was held that the respondent Bank is not a necessary party to the complaint and it was noticed that the complainant had not made the purchaser, in whose favour the sale deed was executed, a party to the complaint. It was held that there was no transaction between the complainant and the Bank and therefore the complainant failed to establish that the Bank is liable to pay an amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs. It was held that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32680-DB WP No. 673 of 2024 HC-KAR the complainant and the respondent -Bank. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

#4. In the other impugned order of the National Commission in which the order passed by the State Commission was challenged, the contention advanced by the Bank was that there was no contract or agreement whatsoever that would create an obligation of the Bank to make payment to the complainant. It was observed that the fiduciary relationship exists between the purchaser of the immovable property and the Bank and not with the seller who is the complainant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by the impugned order of 05.08.2023 by the National Commission.

#5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Bank draft was made in favour of the petitioner and was to be given to the petitioner by the respondent-Bank which it failed to do and therefore, the complaint was filed before the State Commission. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32680-DB WP No. 673 of 2024 HC-KAR learned counsel has referred to Annexure-E and Annexure-F which are, respectively, the response to the legal notice given by the complainant and the written arguments filed by the respondent -Bank to contend that liability of the Bank was established.

#6. We have perused the record.

#7. On record is an interlocutory application seeking the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 read with Section 151 thereof, seeking to bring on record certain documents which have been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but were not on record before the State Commission or the National Commission. He, however, submits that though the photocopies of the Bank Drafts that are sought to be included in this petition by means of the amendment were not on record, the details of these drafts were on record. Apart from that, a paragraph has been sought to 1 CPC - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32680-DB WP No. 673 of 2024 HC-KAR be inserted in the Writ Petition to the effect that the petitioner is the beneficiary of the Demand Draft. An amendment to the prayer clause is also sought for a direction to the National Commission to hear the matter afresh. Another paragraph as 11(B) is sought to be inserted with regard to the details of certain Demand Drafts and the contention that the respondent only honoured one Demand Draft amounting to Rs.6,78,110/-.

#8. In our considered opinion, the documents that are sought to be brought on record, being not present in the record of either the State Commission or the National Commission cannot be admissible at this stage. Moreover, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the details of the aforesaid Demand Drafts being on record, there is no purpose of admitting the photographs of these Demand Drafts.

#9. The crux of the matter would hinge on the fact whether there is any relationship of consumer and service - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32680-DB WP No. 673 of 2024 HC-KAR provider between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted two judgments of the Apex Court, namely in the matter or Joint Labour Commissioner Vs. Kesar Lal2 and the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta3 to contend that it is not only the purchaser of the goods or hirer of services, but even those who use the goods and who are beneficiaries of services with approval of the person who purchase the goods or who hired services are included in it.

#10. As is evident from perusal of the order of the State Commission, on 18.08.2016, the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of two persons in lieu of sale amount as consideration it was alleged to be paid by respondent No.1 - Bank through four Demand Drafts. The petitioner after registration of the sale deed handed over the keys with vacant possession of the property to the 2 Manu/SC/0304/2020 3 Manu/SC/0178/1994 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32680-DB WP No. 673 of 2024 HC-KAR buyers. Thereafter it is alleged that the respondent -Bank failed to provide the Demand Drafts of Rs.40.00 lakhs alleging that the petitioner had already received the proper value of the property. On failure of the respondent- Bank to make the payment of the Demand Draft, the complaint was filed. When specifically queried, whether there was any privity of contract between the petitioner respondent - Bank, nothing could be demonstrated to that effect. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the sale deed that has been enclosed as Annexure -C to this Writ Petition reflects that the entire sale consideration of Rs.65,21,220/- was paid by the purchasers by means of cheque, RTGS payment, pay orders of the Bank and the vendors, that is the petitioner confirm and acknowledge the receipt of the same in the presence of the witnesses full and final settlement and complete satisfaction of the entire sale consideration. The petitioner further confirmed that no other amount whatsoever is due from the purchaser. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:32680-DB WP No. 673 of 2024 HC-KAR

#11. In view of the aforesaid, it has not been demonstrated that the petitioner is the beneficiary of the service, if any, provided by the Bank. The Bank does not feature in the entire transaction of sale between the petitioner and the vendees in respect of the property for which the sale deed was executed.

#12. For the reasons aforesaid, we find both the orders of the State Commission as well as the National Commission, sound and not liable to be interfered with. There is no merit in the instant petition and it is accordingly dismissed. All pending I.A.s stand disposed of. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19