JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent no.1 Sachin Lohan who was doing business under the name and style of Skylark Infrastructure and Telesystem, got himself registered with respondent no.2 e-Bay Motors, which is an online platform for (b) to (b) auction of motor vehicles, meaning thereby that those who were in the business of selling and purchasing vehicles, were expected to be registered on the aforesaid platform.  The petitioner company sold a vehicle bearing no. DL-2C-AJ-2257 to the complainant on the aforesaid E-Platform, for a consideration of Rs.3,10,000/-.  The delivery of the vehicle was later on taken by them from the petitioner company, alongwith such documents as were provided by the petitioner company.  The complainant applied to the concerned Registering Authority for transfer of the vehicle in his name.  However, since the vehicle was not registered in the name of the petitioner company but was registered in the name of one Mr. Suresh Kumar, the transfer of registration was not allowed.  As a result, the complainant could not use the vehicle purchased by him.  Being aggrieved from the non-registration of the vehicle in his name, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint impleading the petitioner company as well as respondent no.2 as the opposite parties in the complaint. 

2.      The petitioner company remained ex-parte before the District Forum.  Respondent no.2 e-Bay Motors however, filed a reply taking a preliminary objection that having purchased the vehicle on a (b) to (b) platform meant only for car dealers, the complainant was not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. 

3.      The District Forum as well as the State Commission having ruled in favour of the complainant and having directed refund of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioner company is before this Commission, by way of this revision petition. 

4.      The first question which rises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the complainant can be said to be a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The aforesaid term excludes from its ambit a person who purchases the goods for resale or for any other commercial purpose.  In his affidavit by way of evidence, the complainant clearly stated that the vehicle in question was purchased by him for his personal use.  The documents filed by the complainant show that he had applied for registration of the vehicle in his individual name.  The affidavit of the complainant, coupled with the documents filed by him, leave no doubt that though he was registered on a (b) to (b) web portal, the vehicle in question was purchased by him for his personal use.  In terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, what is relevant is the purpose for which the goods are purchased.  Unless it is shown that the goods were purchased for resale or for any other commercial purposes, the purchaser would be a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  No evidence by respondent no.2 e-Bay Motors was filed before the District Forum.  As far as the petitioner company is concerned, it was ex-parte before the said forum.  Therefore, the un-rebutted evidence produced by the complainant needs to be accepted and therefore, I hold that the complainant was a consumer of the petitioner company as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 

5.      The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether there was any defect in the title of the petitioner company at the time the vehicle was sold to the complainant.  Admittedly, the vehicle was not registered in the name of the petitioner company at the time it was sold to the complainant.  The vehicle admittedly was registered in the name of one Mr. Suresh Kumar.  The petitioner company, in my view, should either have got the vehicle transferred in its name before putting it in auction or it should have at least provided the sale letter and other documents from the person on whose name the vehicle was registered, to the complainant, in order to enable him to get the vehicle transferred in his name.  Since admittedly, neither the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner company nor it provided the sale letter from the registered owner of the vehicle, there was an obvious defect in the title of the vehicle.  As a result, the complainant could not get the vehicle transferred in his name.  He could not have used the vehicle without getting it first registered in his name.  Therefore, he is entitled for the amount paid by him, alongwith adequate compensation in the form of interest. 

6.      However, as far as respondent no.2 e-Bay Motors is concerned, it being only a platform to facilitate the transaction of sale and purchase of vehicles, no liability on account of any defect in the title of the vehicle can be fostened upon it.  Nor is respondent no.2 required to verify the title of the person who puts the goods on auction of its platform before allowing the said auction. 

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1) The vehicle which the complainant had purchased from the petitioner company on the platform of respondent no.2, will be collected by the petitioner company from the place where it has been parked.  The address of the aforesaid place will be communicated to the petitioner company by Speed Post within one week from today.  All the parts and components of the vehicle should be available in it at the time it is delivered to the petitioner company though one or more parts/components may not be functional on account of passage of time. 

2) On delivery of the vehicle to the petitioner company in terms of this order, the petitioner company shall refund the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of the payment till the date on which the refund is made. 

3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, no additional compensation will be payable to the complainant and the parties shall bear their respective costs.