Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1557

TATA MOTORS FIN. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAHNAWAZ KHAN - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 17.03.2016 passed in C.C.No.1666/2009 by District Commission, Indore)

 

1. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.

     NANAWATI MAHALAYA, THIRD FLOOR,

     8, HOMI MODI STREET, MUMBAI

 

2.  TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.

      MZ-22-36, SUNRISE TOWER,

      579, M.G.ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)

 

3.   ABHISHEK RANA,

      MANAGER, TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.

      MZ-22-36, SUNRISE TOWER,

      579, M.G.ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)                                                              … APPELLANTS.

 

         Versus

 

SHAHNAWAZ KHAN,

S/O SHRI MEHFOOZ KHAN,

R/O 46, GREENLAND COLONY,

INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                           …     RESPONDENT

                  

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri J. S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellants.

           None for the respondents.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 15.06.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This is an appeal by the opposite parties/appellants against the order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short ‘District Commission) in

-2-

C.C.No.1666/2009, 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 local bid regarding sale of seized vehicles by the opposite parties to purchase a four wheeler. He purchased the vehicle on 30.03.2009 for which he paid Rs.1,35,000/- on 31.03.2009 and Rs.70,000/- on 16.04.2009. Rs.15,000/- deposited on 31.03.2009 for participating in bid was also adjusted. It is submitted that the said vehicle was parked in yard at Ratlam and release letter was also given.  It is alleged that when he approached the opposite party no.4 M/S Landmark Motors to take vehicle he was asked to deposit Rs.94,000/- and on refusing to pay, the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant. 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 in the release letter dated 29.04.2009, it has been specifically mentioned that “Please collect the appropriate parking charges from the bearer before releasing the vehicle. No complaint regarding the parking charges shall be entertained by us after the custody of the vehicle is handed over to the buyer.” The complainant was very well

-3-

aware of this fact before participating in the bid that he will have to pay parking charges also. But when he refused to pay the parking charges, the opposite party no.4 refused to give possession of the vehicle to him. There has been no deficiency in .service on part of the opposite parties.

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties to return the cost of vehicle Rs.2,20,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 31.03.2009 till payment. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded. Hence this appeal by the opposite parties.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the opposite parties/appellants. 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. The complainant had to raise objection regarding payment of parking charges at the time of participating in the local bid to purchase the vehicle. He argued that impugned order of the District Commission is against the law and principles of natural justice and deserves to be set-aside. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in Sunil Kumar & Anr Vs New Mandi Township III (2014) CPJ 241 (NC) and in Subhash Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority I (2015) CPJ 41 (NC).

-4-

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

8.                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 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

-5-

auction. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Sunil Kumar (supra) and in Subhash Infra Engineers (supra).

9.                Thus it is well settled 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. 

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

11.              In the result, the appeal succeeds and is 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)

            Presiding Member                             Member