1. JAI BHAGWAN & ORS.S/o Sh. Hari Chand R/o Village Ballah, Tehsil AssandhDistrict KarnalHARYANA2. SH. SURINDERS/o Sh. Bhaya Ram R/o Village Ballah, Tehsil AssandhDistrict KarnalHARYANA3. SH. SULEKH CHANDS/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Village Ballah, Tehsil AssandhDistrict KarnalHARYANA4. SH. KRISHANS/o Sh. Ram Phal R/o Village Ballah, Tehsil AssandhDistrict KarnalHARYANA5. SH. RAJENDER PARSHADS/o Sh. Churia, R/o Village Ballah, Tehsil AssandhDistrict KarnalHARYANA6. SH. BASTI RAMS/o Sh. Sita Ram R/o Village Ballah, Tehsil AssandhDistrict KarnalHARYANA7. SH. JAI BHAGWANS/o Sh. Mange Ram, Resident of Bishan Sarup Colony 66/4,PanipatHARYANA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 03 Nov 2009
ORDER
Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.
Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ““U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. V/s Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660” to contend that since the shops were sold to the respondents in an auction, the
respondents cannot be termed as a ‘Consumer’ and the complaint filed by them would not be maintainable.
We agree with the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.The point in issue is squarely concluded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by the aforesaid judgment.Accordingly, revision petition is allowed, orders passed by the foras below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
However, respondent is put at liberty to seek remedy in any other forum if permissible under law.In so far as the limitation is concerned, respondents may move an application under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 seeking set off of time spent before the consumer fora in the light of observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P. S. G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583”.
