SUBHASH ANAND vs S.M.G. BEATY P.LTD

THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum No. 1 dated 25.5.92. 2.Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, M/s. S.M.G. Beaty Pvt. Ltd., advertised that they would auction certain vehicles on behalf of respondent No. 2, on 13.12.90 at I.M.A. Mini Auditorium, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi. They distributed hand bills containing the details of the vehicles to be auctioned and some particulars of the Vehicle such as whether accidented, stolen etc. It was further stated that 25% of the bid amount should be deposited by the successful bidder at the fall of the hammar and the balance amount within a week after the bid was approved by the Insurance Company. 3.The vehicle mentioned at serial No. 8 i.e. Maruti Van, 1988 model, allegedly shown as stolen, was purchased by the complainant for Rs. 41,000/-. He deposited Rs. 10,000/- at the fall of the hammar. It is pleaded that when he inspected the vehicle on 14.12.90 it was discovered that it was not stolen but seriously accidented vehicle. He thereafter, withdrew his offer on 17.12.90. He, it is alleged, wanted to deliver the letter dated 17.12.90 for withdrawal of the offer and refund of Rs. 10,000/- but it was not accepted by respondent No. 1. He, thereafter, despatched the said letter under registered cover. He also served a legal notice upon them. Consequently, he filed a complaint for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. 4.The complaint was contested by the respondent. They pleaded that no mis-representation of the facts was made by them. The inspection of the vehicle was allowed from 10.12.90 to 12.12.90 in order to make assessment of the condition thereof and one of the term of the auction was ''as is where is basis''. It was further pleaded that the complainant made a bid of Rs. 40,000/- and paid Rs. 10,000/- as consideration. He could not resile from the contract. 5. The District Forum held that the complainant purchased the vehicle with full knowledge and open eyes. Therefore, he could not resile from the contract. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed. The complainant has come up in appeal against that order to the Commission. 6. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the final bid was to be confirmed by the Insurance Company and before the confirmation of the bid the complainant could withdraw the offer to purchase the vehicle and he did so. Consequently he is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on M/s. Suraj Besan & Rice Mills v. Food Corporation of India, AIR 1988 Delhi 224. 7. We have duly considered the arguments. There is no dispute about the proposition put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The question that arises whether such a plea can be taken in the complaint. The word ''complaint'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The definition reads as follows:- "(c) "complaint" means any allegation in writing by a complainant that- (i) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complainant has suffered loss or damage; (ii) the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act;"

The Counsel for the appellant has failed to show that such a plea falls within the definition of the word ''complaint''. If the complainant wants to seek relief on the basis of the said plea, he should file a Civil Suit. He can not claim the relief on that basis under the Consumer Protection Act. 8. Faced with this situation he sought to urge that in the hand bills it was mentioned that the vehicle had been stolen, but on inspection it was found as accidented. Thus it is established that a mis-representation was made by the Insurance Company. 9. We have considered this argument as well, but find no substance therein. In the hand bill it was specifically provided that the inspection of the vehicle could be allowed between 10th & 12th December''90 between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at company''s godown at Badarpur on main Mathura Road and that no inspection would be allowed on 13.12.90, the day of auction. The other condition of the auction was that the vehicles would be sold on ''as is where is basis''. It was the duty of the appellant to have inspected the vehicle and thereafter he should have given the bid of the same. The fact whether it was accidented or not could be found out by him on inspection of the vehicle. No warranty was given by the respondent that the vehicle was in a proper condition. After taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to refund of the money of the ground that the vehicle was accidented and not stolen. 10. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.