Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Opposite Parties have been conducting auction the used vehicles from time to time and as per the procedure laid down by the Opposite Parties for participating in the bid, every bidder has to deposit security amount of Rs.19,999/- and only then the bidder registered for the bid and a specific token number is issued to him for participating in the bid. As per the terms and conditions of the bid, the security amount so deposited by the registered bidder is refundable if the bidder does not give any bid. One such auction of the used vehicles was held by the Opposite Parties on 26.06.2017 at Shri Ram Automall India Ltd., Village Gahaur, Ferozpur Road, NH-95, Ludhiana. The complainant was desirous of participating in the bid for the purchase of one used car for his personal use and as such the complainant got registered himself as a bidder with the Opposite Parties on deposit of security amount of Rs.19,999/- and the complainant was issued Tag/Token No.121. The nephew of the complainant namely Vinod Kumar was lying admitted in D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana and he had been operated upon there. However, as per telephonic message received by the complainant from one of his relative in the hospital that suddenly his condition become critical and as such the complainant had to rush immediately there. This fact has been disclosed by the complainant at that time to the officials of Opposite Parties, who were conducting the auction of vehicle and the complainant also informed the officials not to accept the bid in his absence from any other person. As such, the complainant did not participate in the bid in true letter and spirit and did not make even a single bid on that day i.e. 26.06.2017. As such, as per rules, the security Rs.19,999/- so deposited by the complainant is liable to be refunded to him. The complainant wanted to purchase a used car for his personal use and by paying the security to the Opposite Parties, the complainant became the consumer qua the Opposite Parties. As such, the complainant falls within the definition of consumer. However, when the complainant returned back from the hospital to the bid place and apprised the concerned authorities present over there that the complainant did not make any bid as he had gone in between the bid and did not join the bid thereafter. As such, the complainant made a request for the refund of his security amount of Rs.19,999/- as per rules. However, the Opposite Parties refused to refund the security amount. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the token book given to the complainant, only registered bidder can give bid and no other person can even enter or give bid. As such, no bid was given by the complainant and the complainant was entitled for the refund of his security amount as the complainant did not give any bid himself. The act and conduct of the Opposite Parties for not refunding the security amount to the complainant, is totally illegal and arbitrary and is against the settled rules and regulations governing the bid. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 11.07.2017 upon the Opposite Parties, which was duly received by the Opposite Parties, but they did not refund the security amount to complainant nor replied to the notice. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following relief:-
a) Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the security amount of Rs.19,999/- to complainant.
b) To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, damages and deficiency in service.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. Hence it is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not come to Forum with clean hands. He is trying to take benefits from his own wrongs which cannot be allowed as per law. The complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Parties. Hence it is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not entitled to file this complaint in this forum as the complainant does not come into the purview of definition of consumer as per law. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost and compensation. The complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. No cause of action is accrued to the complainant against the Opposite Parties as Opposite Parties are not liable for any type of deficiency on their part. The complaint is barred as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, hence he is not consumer as per law. The complaint is not maintainable as there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the Opposite Parties and complainant as per the law enshrined in various precedents. This complaint is not maintainable as it involves a complicated question of law and facts which needs a whole set of evidence and this court is unable to decide it summarily as it needs an elaborate evidence. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that the whole storey regarding the illness and call from hospital is concocted by the mischievous mind of the complainant. It is admitted that Opposite Parties had received bid amount of Rs.2,54,000/- on the lot no.174, Vehicle no.UNREGS192 from the tag token no.121 allotted to the complainant. Accordingly payment reminder notice/letter was forward to the complainant, but the same was returned back remark refused. It is denied that Opposite Parties did not reply to the legal notice, the said notice was replied properly by the Opposite Parties and vide which it was called upon to the complainant that if he says that some body else gave bid on his place while using his registration tag/token he may come and watch the videography of bid proceedings and he should also lodge a complaint to the police regarding the impersonation if any. But the complainant did nothing till date which shows the malafide on the part of the complainant and complainant is not entitled to derive benefits from his own wrongs. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.
4. To prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and Mark A and Mark B. On the other hand, evidence of Opposite Parties was closed by order, vide order dated 22.11.2021.
5. We have gone through the documents placed on record. Now, the main question before us is that whether the complainant come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act or not. In this regard Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another V/s Amarjeet Singh and others (2009) 4 SCC 660 held that an auction-purchaser is not a consumer within the definition of the word consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and others. It was observed in para 14 as under:-
Where there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective purchaser/lessee participates in the auction after having an opportunity of examining the site, the bid in the auction is made keeping in view the existing situation, position and condition of the site. If all amenities are available, he would offer a higher amount. If there are no amenities, or if the site suffers from any disadvantages, he would offer a lesser amount, or may not participate in the auction. Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment, or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffers from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenities are not provided. With reference to a public auction of existing sites (as contrasted from sites to be `formed'), 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 which a complaint can be filed. Therefore, any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the fora under the Act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites.
In view of the judgement of Supreme Court of India (Supra) complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Since such type of dispute has not been termed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a consumer dispute, therefore, we need not to go further to consider as to whether the complainant was entitled to get refund of the bidder amount. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an ‘auction purchaser’ cannot file a complaint before the Consumer Fora being not a consumer for redressal of his grievances, therefore, the person who has not even become a auction purchaser, he can not be consumer. Moreover, in the present case this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter of dispute regarding ‘Auction’.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the complaint, the present complaint stands dismissed. Accordingly, Miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, before this District Commission also stands disposed off accordingly. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
7. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
