Madan Kumar Singh(D) Thr Lrs vs Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors

2.For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.20515 of 2005.

3.Appellant was an auction purchaser of a truck bearing registration No. UP I-4775, put to an auction sale, on account of default in payment of instalments committed by its previous owner Iqbal, having taken loan from Union Bank of India under "Self Employment Scheme". Recovery Certificate was issued to the Collector, Sultanpur (U.P.) by the said bank. The auction was held in the Tehsil Compound, Sultanpur, on 19.8.1999. The appellant's bid for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- being the highest, was knocked down in his favour and accepted by respondent No. 1.

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 vehicle transferred in his name, thereby depriving him of its commercial use, the purpose for which he had purchased.

9.Appellant was ultimately delivered the possession of the truck on 14.3.2000, during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum. The relevant papers thereof were not handed over to him for a long time but on persistent requests, the same were handed over to him some time in the month of January, 2005. Thus after a lapse of more than five years from the date, the auction was confirmed in favour of the appellant.

10.The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant holding therein that appellant is not a "consumer" within the definition of the Act.

11.Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow which was registered as Appeal No. 2327 of 2000. The State Commission dismissed the appeal with certain observations reproduced herein below:

12.Pursuant thereto, appellant submitted representation to the District Magistrate on 17.2.2003 and continued to remind them that they have to deliver the necessary documents to the appellant so as to enable him to get the vehicle transferred in his name, which would further enable him to use the same for commercial purposes.

13.Against the order of the State Commission, appellant filed Revision Petition No. 929 of 2003 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The same came to be disposed of vide impugned order on 18.5.2005 and the complaint filed by appellant has partly been allowed with the following directions:

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).

36. Taking the totality of the situation as it exists, we are of the opinion that a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable by respondents jointly or severally to the appellant would subserve the justice.

38. In this case also, keeping the circumstances under which appellant was made to run from pillar to post, to get the documents of the truck from the respondents, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the original application till actual payment of the aforesaid enhanced awarded amount is made by the respondents. We accordingly do so. The appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.20515 of 2005 is allowed with costs and Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.11210 of 2006 is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee assessed at Rs.10,000/- each.

August 07, 2009.