TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....favour. Since no objection was received against the said auction sale, the appellant deposited balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 20.8.1999. 5.On 19.9.1999, the said auction was confirmed, since no objections were received much less, from the previous owner Iqbal. Thus, it was treated to be a final sale in favour of the appellant. 6.Obviously, after the sale having been confirmed in favour of the appellant, he was entitled to receive possession of the truck, which was not delivered to him by the respondents. Thus he made a representation on 30.11.1999 for delivery thereof. He continued to make several representations with the respondents for delivery of the truck purchased in the auction and also to hand over to him the documents so that the vehicle could be transferred in the name of the appellant so as to enable him to ply the same. It appears that truck was delivered to the appellant after about six months from the date of auction sale, for which no plausible reasons were assigned by the respondents. 7.Despite handing over possession of the truck at a belated stage, respondents did not deliver necessary documents of the truck to the appellant so as to enable him to get the veh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the respondents to the Petitioner jointly and severally. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, U.P. to conduct an inquiry into the matter and fix the responsibility including the recovery of this awarded amount from the officers who are found guilty of deficiency/negligence in this case." 14. Feeling aggrieved thereby the auction purchaser Madan Kumar Singh (since dead) preferred a Special Leave Petition whereas respondents have also preferred Special Leave Petition against Madan Kumar Singh (since dead). 15. The original appellant having died during the pendency of the appeal, his legal representative was brought on record. 16. We have, accordingly, heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.K. Kapoor and learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R.K. Gupta at length. Perused the record. 17. The questions which arise for consideration in the aforesaid appeals are (i) whether the appellant can be said to be 'consumer' within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act; and (ii) whether it can be said that there has been deficiency in the services committed by respondents as contemplated under Section 2(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person. [Explanation- For the purposes of sub- clause (i), "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self- employment;]". 23. Plain reading of the same makes it abundantly clear that appellant herein would fall in the category of a 'consumer' as he had bought the truck for a consideration which was paid by him. It was bought to be used exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment. The said pleading by way of amendment was incorporated by the appellant in his application filed under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Consumer Forum but proper cognizance thereof has not been taken. 24. A further reading of the aforesaid definition of 'consumer' makes it clear that Parliament wanted to exclude from the scope of the definition the persons, who obtain goods for resale and also those who purchase goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hereinabove would go to show that 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. Even after getting delivery of the truck he could not have started plying the same unless he was delivered the relevant papers thereof. There is no dispute, which even otherwise stands proved from the voluminous material available on record that despite best efforts made by the appellant, the relevant papers of the truck were handed over to him only after six years from the date of the auction. No plausible or convincing reasons have been assigned by the respondents for not doing so. 29. From the narration of the aforesaid facts, it is clearly made out that 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. According to us, respondents were certainly imperfect and the same would amount to shortcoming in quality in providing the service to the appellant. 30. Thus, in our ....