By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

            The complainant bid for a jeep KL11-D2771 for Rs.28000/- of the Vatakara Municipality.  Opposite party while confirming the complainant as highest bidder told the complainant that he can collect the necessary documents of the jeep as well as take delivery of the jeep within two days.  The jeep had a stepney tyre tube, with disc-1 alternator dynamo, one jack with lever.  When the complainant went to take delivery of the jeep he found the above said items missing.  The jeep was in the custody of the opposite party.  Complainant had informed this matter to the opposite party.  Opposite party did not respond.  On 4-12-06 complainant took delivery of the jeep without the missing items.  The jeep was in the custody of the opposite party, so opposite party was bound to maintain the jeep in the condition which prevailed during the time of auction.  Due to the negligence of opposite party a few items of the jeep were missing opposite party did not take care to redress the grievance of the complainant.  Opposite party had collected earnest money deposit as well as bid amount from the complainant.  Even then opposite party was deficient in their service.  Opposite party failed to return back the missing items or to pay the value of the missing items.  Hence this complaint.

            Opposite party filed a version.  The complaint is not maintainable. Complainant will not come under Consumer Protection Act.  Complainant was the highest bidder in the auction in the sale of office vehicle KL11-D-2721 jeep for an amount of Rs.28500/-.  Complainant was well aware of the condition of the jeep.  It was auctioned on ‘as is where’ condition.  Opposite party denies the fact that they have assured that the jeep has stepney tyre, disc, One alternator dynamo, one jack with lever etc.  Complainant had examined the vehicle in total before the auction.  Bid was approved on 12-7-06.  Notice was issued to the complainant dated 20-7-06 to take delivery of the vehicle after remitting bid amount.  Complainant did not turn up.  The complainant had taken delivery only on 4-12-06. There was no negligence or lapse on the part of opposite party in keeping the vehicle in the original condition as on 30-6-06 when it was auctioned.  Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.  Complaint is devoid of any merit.  Hence opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

            PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on complainant’s side.  No oral or documentary evidence on opposite party’s side.

            Opposite party has taken the view that this complainant will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act because the vehicle was bid in auction but according to the complainant he has paid Rs.28000/- as the bid amount.  Opposite party had also collected the earnest money deposit from the complainant.  These were the amount paid to the opposite party as consideration for the jeep.  Any person who gives consideration and avails goods or service will come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  The jeep was in the custody of the opposite party.  The complainant noticed certain items missing when he went to take delivery of the jeep. This fact was made known to the opposite party.  Complainant had requested several times to opposite party either to give the missing items or to pay the value of those items.  Opposite party did not respond.  In the opinion of the Forum opposite party did not take care of the complaint of the petitioner.  Opposite party has not produced the list of the items of the jeep before auctioning.  In that case Forum has been convinced of the version put forward by the complainant.  Complainant has produced documents showing that he had requested the opposite paprty by Ext. A1 and A2 for the missing items.  Opposite party has not produced any documents to prove that these items were not in the custody of the opposite party.  In that case we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for compensation as he has already bought the missing items.

            In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs.500/-.  The opposite party is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Pronounced in the open court this the  31st   day of December 2009.

                   Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

            PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

A1.  Photocopy of complaint dt. 8-11-06 filed before Vatakara Municipality.

A2.  Photocopy of letter dt. 4-12-06 issued by the complainant to the Vatakara

       Municipality.

A3.  Photocopy of quotation dt. 13-1-07.

A4.  Photocopy of quotation dt. 23-1-07.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

            Nil.

Witness examined for the complainant.

PW1.  P.N. Sunder Raj (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

                        None

                                                            Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

                        (Forwarded/By order)

              SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.