Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/730

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FIN. CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKESH K. JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

SH.SATISH SHARMA

01 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 23.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.164/2016 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

MANAGER, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT

FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER.                                             …          APPELLANT

 

           Versus

                 

MUKESH KUMAR JAIN.                                                                               …         RESPONDENT.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 

                                      O R D E R

 

01.12.2023

 

            Shri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.

            Ms. Kamla Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties/appellants against the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.164/2016, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2.                The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the complainant had participated in open auction regarding sale of seized vehicles by the opposite parties to purchase a four wheeler. His bid to  purchase Tata Indica bearing registration number MP-15 CA-6912 for a sum

-2-

of Rs.1,92,135/- was accepted. Thereafter he deposited the amount of Rs.1,72,136/- on 25.11.2014 took the possession of the vehicle. Rs.19,999/- deposited on 22.11.2014 for participating in bid was also adjusted. Thereafter he incurred expenses in transfer of registration, insurance and in accessories. It is alleged that after some time his vehicle was seized by the police stating that it is stolen vehicle. The complainant therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite parties in their reply before the District Commission have submitted that for default in repayment of loan by the earlier owner of the vehicle Irfan, the vehicle was seized by them and sold in open auction in ‘as is where is’ condition. The complainant participated in open auction and had purchased the said vehicle. The complainant was very well aware of this fact that the vehicle is seized vehicle.

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the cost of vehicle Rs.1,92,135/- within one month. Compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- along with costs of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded. It is also directed that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within one month, interest @ 6% p.a. will be payable from the date of order till payment. Hence this appeal by the opposite parties.

-3-

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for opposite parties/appellants argued that the complainant is not their consumer therefore there is no question of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. He argued that impugned order of the District Commission is against the law and principles of natural justice and deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that since the complainant paid consideration to the opposite parties regarding purchase of the vehicle in open auction, therefore, it is the responsibility of the opposite parties to refund the cost of the vehicle, in case, the vehicle is seized by the police. The complainant had to suffer a lot. She supporting the impugned order argued that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that admittedly the complainant had purchased the vehicle in open auction conducted by the opposite parties for sale of seized vehicles as he has stated in very second paragraph of his complaint as also in legal notice sent to the opposite parties.

9.                At the very outset, the first and foremost issue involved in the matter is regarding jurisdiction of the District Commission that whether the complainant is a consumer or not as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since the complainant had participated in

-4-

an open auction with open eyes and he must have gather all the information before participating in the auction which was conducted as per rules. Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.  T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors. II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC) though it was a case of housing but in paragraph 14 it has been clearly held that a complaint is not maintainable on behalf of the auction purchaser as there is no relationship of ‘buyer’ or ‘seller’ and it does not amount to hiring of service to fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further held that any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the Commissions constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction.

10.              Thus it is a well settled principle that in the public auction, the complainant cannot qualify the criteria of being a consumer. With reference to a public auction, the purchaser/lessee is not a ‘consumer’, the owner is not a ‘trader’ or ‘service provider’ and the grievance does not relate to any matter in regard to which a complaint can be filed. 

11.              In view of the settled law, the District Commission in fact had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter in question. Thus we find that the District Commission has committed grave error in entertaining

-5-

and allowing the complaint. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

12.              In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.  However, the complainant/respondent is at liberty to approach the appropriate court of law of competent jurisdiction for seeking redressal of his grievance, if any.

 

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)           

                  Acting President                         Member