1) This is an order arising out of C.C. No. 6/2023 after hearing of the learned counsel for the complainant on the point of admissibility of the complaint case. The complaint was filed under the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 by the complainant against the opp.parties with the allegation that the complainant in the year 2022 he participated in the online bidding of the online auction portal of the opp.party no. 1 with respect to one Mahindra MN 31 Truck, bearing Registration No. AS 01-EC-9049, Engine No. BA 13ZEO216. Chassis No. MESPFAHBCD6F48997. The said vehicle was previously owned and possessed by one Mr. Chandra S.Chakraborty and on being defaulted by him in making the payment of loan installments inspite of repeated reminders under the loan Agreement/Contract No. GUWAHATI0704120002, the opp.party no. 2, being the financer allegedly took the same for auction through the op.party no. 1.
2) As a mandatory provision to participate in the online auction the complainant registered his name by paying an amount of Rs.19,999/- as Refundable Security Deposit (RSD), against which a Receipt bearing no. 2020032031689 dtd. 20.3.2020 was issued to him by the opp.party no.1. It is pertinent to mention herein that as against such deposit of Refundable Security , UID No. AJ00000019608 was also issued to the complainant.
3) Thereafter the complainant duly participated in the said alleged online auction conducted by the opp.party no. 1 and accordingly the authorized signatory of the opp.party no. 1 , vide his letter dtd. 13.4.2020 informed the complainant that his offer to the tune of Rs. 3,65,000/-with respect to the said vehicle was accepted by the seller and declared him as the winner under Reference no. S19122700938 -AS01EC9094.vide the said letter dtd. 13.4.2020, the complainant was also informed that the Refundable Security Deposit (RSD), as aforesaid will be refunded to him on making the full payment to the seller, i.e. the opp.party no.2 .
4) The complainant submitted that based on the said letter dtd. 13.4.2020 issued by the authorized signatory of the opp.aprty no. 1 , the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- om favour of the opp.party no. 2 on 21.4.2020 from his account bearing no. 33289772268, IFSC No. SBIN)))9144 standing at State Bank of India , Lanka Branch. Thereafter , on 12.5.2020, the complainant deposited the rest amount of Rs.1,65,000/- in cash with the opp.partyno. 2 , against which a Receipt bearing Folio No. C)134208 dtd. 12.5.2020, as against Loan Agreement/Contract No. GUWAH0704120002, as aforesaid was issued by the authorized signatory of the opp.party no. 2 to the complainant . The complainant paid the toal bid price of Rs.3,65,000/- to the op.partyno. 2 based on which the opp.party no. 1 issued Gate Pass bearing no. GAL/2020/05/12/006 dtd. 12/5/2020 with respect to the said vehicle bearing Registration No. AS01-EC-9049, Engine No. BA13ZE0216, Chassis no. MESPFAHBCD6F48997 to the complainant . Accordingly, the complainant took delivery of the said vehicle from stockyard of the op.party no. 3 in “as is where” condition on 12.5.2020.
5) The complainant stated that at the time of taking delivery of the said vehicle , the authorized signatory of the op.party no. 2 handed over various forms by putting his signatures as the registered owner /transferor of the said vehicle .However , the opp.aprty no. 2 never handed over the original registration certificate of the said vehicle to the complainant on demand . Later on , the complainant came to know that the said vehicle was black listed . It further came to the knowledge of the complainant that the said vehicle was financed by the erstwhile Rajendra Investment Pvt.Ltd., a finance company subsequently amalgated with the opp.party no. 4, at the time of purchased by its previous owner and not by the opp.party no. 2 .
6) The complainant further submits that the opp.party No. 1 to 3 cheated the complainant , auction the said vehicle to the complainant . The opp.party no. 1 did not return the Refundable Security Deposit . The opp.party no. 1 provides online bidding platform by which one can participate for buying and selling including used vehicle .
Under the above facts and circumstances the complainant came out with this present complaint for a relief under the Consumer Protection Act.
7) We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as per Consumer Protection Act.2019. The definition of Consumer is read as Section (7) “Consumer” means any person who-
i. Buys any goods for a considerationwhichhas been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system of deferredpayment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys suchgoods for consideration paid or promisedor partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when suchuse is made with the approval of suchperson, butdoes not include a person who obtains suchgoods for resale or for any commercial purpose : or
- Hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. “
8) Apparently the matter of dispute involved that the complainant participated in the online bidding of the online auction portal of the opp.party no. 1 . the said vehicle was previously owned and possessed by another person and on being defaulted by him in making the loan installments, the opp.party no. 2 being the financer took the same vehicle for auction through the opp.party no. 1.
9) We are of the view that the complainant did not avail any service for a consideration from the owner of the said vehicle . We have found in the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Surender Chhikara n-vs- Huda & Anr. Where it is held that a purchaser who purchases commercial property in an open auction is not a consumer, failing within the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
10) It is also decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in Chandigarh Administration and others -vs- Amarjeet Singh and others II 2009 SLT 736/2009 CTJ 486 (Supreme Court ) (CP), that auction purchaser/complainant is not a consumer .
11) In view of the discussion made here-in-above we are of the opinion that present dispute is not coming under the purview of Consumer Protection Act,2019. However, the allegation made in the complaint petition about fraudulent act concealing certain facts about finance of the vehicle and financer of the previous owner etc. is a dispute which need proper judicial adjudication and investigation and such dispute does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. As such, complaint petition is not admitted and is rejected.
