2009 Supreme(SC) 1415

2009(6) Supreme 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Madan Kumar Singh (D) Thr. LR. — Appellant
versus
Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5165 of 2009
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20515 of 2005]
Decided on : 07-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Where appellant bought truck for a consideration which was paid by him, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, then appellant would fall in the category of a ‘consumer’ with in the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act,1986 – Sections 12,2(1)(d) – Consumer – Appellant purchased a truck in an auction purchase – Despite deposit of price of truck it was delivered to appellant after about six months from the date of auction sale, for which no plausible reasons were assigned by the Respondents – Apart from that respondents did not deliver necessary documents of the truck to the appellant so as to enable him to get the vehicle transferred in his name, for six long years – Complaint – Dismissed by District Forum – Appeal – Dismissed by State Commission-Revision petition thereagainst-Partly allowed by National Commission awarding 25,000 as compensation – Special leave petitions thereagainst – Plain reading of Section 2(1)(d) of Act showed that appellant would fall in the category of a ‘consumer’ as he had bought the truck for a consideration which was paid by him since it was bought to be used exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. (Paras 23 to 26)

        Consumer Protection Act,1986 – Sections 12,2(1)(g) – Deficiency in service – Appellant purchased a truck in an auction purchase – Despite deposit of initial money and balance consideration truck was delivered to appellant after about six months from the date of auction sale, for which no plausible reasons were assigned by the Respondents – Apart from that respondents did not deliver necessary documents of the truck to the appellant so as to enable him to get the vehicle transferred in his name, for six long years – Complaint alleging Deficiency in service – Held appellant having been declared as highest bidder had deposited the initial money and next day deposited the balance of the consideration – The truck in question was actually handed over to him almost after six months from the date of auction in his favour – Despite best efforts made by appellant, relevant papers of truck were handed over to him only after six years from the date of the auction – No plausible or convincing reasons had been assigned by respondents for not doing so – Hence respondents were at fault in performance of the services which was otherwise required to be performed by them – What more could be the deficiency in service cannot be described – Respondents were certainly imperfect and the same amounted to shortcoming in quality in providing service to appellant – Appellant suffered loss of earning firstly due to non-delivery of vehicle and then due to highly belated supply of requisite documents – Moreover, value of the truck also depreciated resulting in further loss to him – Amount awarded by National Commission being too meager enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. (Paras 28 to 38)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant herein in the instant case purchased a truck in an auction purchase. Despite deposit of initial money and balance consideration truck was delivered to appellant after about six months from the date of auction sale, for which no plausible reasons were assigned by the Respondents. Apart from that respondents did not deliver necessary documents of the truck to the appellant so as to enable him to get the vehicle transferred in his name, for six long years. A Complaint alleging Deficiency in service was filed.

       Findings of the Court :

        Appellant having been declared as highest bidder had deposited the initial money and next day deposited the balance of the consideration. The truck in question was actually handed over to him almost after six months from the date of auction in his favour. Despite best efforts made by appellant, relevant papers of truck were handed over to him only after six years from the date of the auction. No plausible or convincing reasons had been assigned by respondents for not doing so. Hence respondents were at fault in performance of the services which was otherwise required to be performed by them. What more could be the deficiency in service cannot be described. Respondents were certainly imperfect and the same amounted to shortcoming in quality in providing service to appellant. Appellant suffered loss of earning firstly due to non-delivery of vehicle and then due to highly belated supply of requisite documents. Moreover, value of the truck also depreciated resulting in further loss to him. Amount awarded by National Commission being too meager was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-

       Result : Ordered accordingly.