An auction purchaser does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and therefore cannot seek consumer remedies.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd), MEMBER

1. This First Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (“the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 17/2010, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed.

2. For convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their respective positions held in the Consumer Complaint.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he participated in an auction conducted by the OPs for Stall No. 8 of the Municipality and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money on 28.11.2007. His bid was duly confirmed. Although he approached the OPs with six months’ rent in accordance with the tender conditions, the OPs did not accept the same and told him that the rent would be accepted on 01.12.2007 i.e. after Municipal Council approves the auction. Relying on OPs’ assurance that possession would be given before 15.12.2007, the Complainant made necessary arrangements and paid advance for goods to start a bakery on 17.12.2007. However, the OPs failed to hand over the room as promised, preventing him from commencing his business, resulting in financial loss and mental agony. He issued a notice to the OPs on 05.01.2008 with respect to inaction in handing over possession of the room. In reply dated 25.05.2008, the OPs cited a pending a Writ Petition by the previous tenant before the High Court as the reason for delay. However, even after the said Writ Petition was disposed of, the possession was not given, prompting the Complainant to file WP(C) No. 5690/08 dated 10.03.2008. Pursuant to the High Court’s direction to consider the Complainant’s notice and take a decision, the OPs issued a notice to the Complainant. However, without addressing his claims, they directed him to take possession after executing an agreement, warning that failure to do so would result in recovery of compensation from the Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by him. So, the Complainant was constrained to take the room from the OPs. But the articles of the previous tenant were kept in the room and those were removed only on 11.04.2008. Further, the condition of the room was not fit for conducting a business and it required several repairs. Even though the Complainant approached the OPs, they failed to undertake necessary repairs and orally directed him to undertake the repairs and agreed that the amount spent by him would be adjusted in the funds of the Municipality. The Complainant had spent Rs.37,000/- for repairs. The OPs issued a notice demanding Rs.1,69,332/- as arrears of rent from April to December 2008, and threatening prosecution for non-payment. Left with no choice, he executed an agreement on 16.02.2009 and began business in the room. In May 2009, due to roof leakage during heavy rain, rainwater entered the room, making it unfit for business. Despite requests, OPs did not carry out repairs, resulting in damage to the Complainant’s goods and forcing him to stop business on 12.05.2009. He informed the OPs and sought a rent waiver, but instead they cancelled his licence citing rent arrears. The room was subsequently re-auctioned and allotted to another person. Although the room was auctioned to him on 28.11.2007, he could start business only in February 2009 and for a brief period. It is the case of the Complainant that there were latches, negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OPs, due to which the Complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony.

4. On notice, OP-1 contested the complaint by filing written version. OP-1