Adviser To The Administrator, U.T. ... vs Amarjit Singh Khurana . on 28 September, 2015
3. The complaint was contested by OPs No. 1 to 3 whereas OP
No. 4 was ex-parte before the District Forum. OPs No. 1 to 3 in their
written reply took preliminary objections that the complainant was not
the consumer as the vehicle was purchased in the auction by giving
bid as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UT Chandigarh
Administration & Anr Vs. Amarjit Singh & Others that auction
purchaser is not a consumer, therefore, the District Forum did not
have the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. The
complaint was baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and that
the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of
the complainant, therefore, liable to be dismissed under section 26 of
the Act. On merits, it was admitted that OP company deals in
providing vehicle loan and that the complainant had approached
these OPs and had purchased the vehicle in auction on "AS IS
WHERE IS" basis, therefore, the complaint was liable to be
dismissed. The complainant had inspected the vehicle and after that
he gave a bid under his signature i.e. Rs. 60,000/- as full and final
consideration and he was declared successful being the highest
bidder and release order was issued on 25.10.2013. The
complainant never approached OPs to get the documents. Other
averments as stated in the complaint were denied. It was stated that
the complaint was without merit, therefore, it be dismissed.