Haryana

StateCommission

CC/108/2015

FAIRWEALTH HOUSING PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AUTI APPROVED PLUS - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT GAUTAM

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No: 108 of 2015

Date of Institution: 24.06.2015

Date of Decision: 27.01.2017

 

Fairwealth Housing Private Limited, 651-652, Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Audi Approved Plus, C-1, Orient Bestech Tower, Sector-34, V.P.O. Khandasa, National Highway-8, Gurgaon-122004.

2.      M/s Zenica Cars India Private Limited Narsingh Pur Industrial Area, 6 Km Mile Stone, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002.

          Also at: Plot No.288A, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana -122006.

3.      Mr. Hardeep Singh, Deputy General Manager Audi Approved Plus, C-1, Orient Bestech Tower, Sector-34, V.P.O. Khandasa, National Highway-8, Gurgaon-122004.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri G.S. Sullar, Advocate for Complainant.

                             Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Fairwealth Housing Private Limited-complainant purchased an old car bearing registration No.DL4
CNE-9090, Audi Q3 2.0 TDI from Zenica Cars India Private Limited-Opposite Parties vide receipt Exhibit CW1/3. The car had covered 60,000 kilometers. According to the complainant, some problem/defect was noticed in the car. On 31^st July, 2014 the car was brought to the workshop of the opposite parties and got the car repaired vide invoice Exhibit CW1/4. Again on 31^st, December, 2014 the car was brought to the workshop of the opposite parties with defect of white smoke emanating from the exhaust when Engine and piston of the car were removed and reinstalled vide invoice Exhibit CW1/5.  Complainant further alleged that the car developed defects again and again and the car was got serviced from the opposite parties vide invoices Exhibits CW1/6, CW1/7, CW1/8 and CW1/9 but even after repeated visits, the defect could not be rectified. It was alleged that the opposite parties sold a defective car to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before this Commission.

2.                The Opposite Parties contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the car was a pre owned manufactured in the year 2009, which had already completed about 60,000 kilometers. It was sold to the complainant on 04.07.2014 and delivered on 07.07.2014. The car was covered by the Audi Approved Plus Warranty Program, offered by Audi India, which provides a limited warranty for a period of two years with respect to vehicles sold under the Audi Approved Plus program, provided the vehicle in question is less than five years old. The limitations, terms and conditions of the warranty in respect of pre-owned vehicles sold under the said program, have been set out in detail in the Warranty Booklet that has been provided to the complainant at the time of sale. Warranty Certificate (Exhibit OP-2) for the period from 09.07.2014 to 08.07.2016 was provided to the complainant. The repairs which were covered under the Warranty, had been carried out free of charge vide invoices Exhibits OP4 to OP6 which were signed on behalf of the complainant to the entire satisfaction of the customer. The allegations of the complainant were denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The complainant examined CW-1 Dinesh Mehan. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties examined OPW-1 Sahil Gogia.

4.                During the hearing, learned counsel for the complainant has moved an application wherein in para No.6  it has been stated that the car has been sold by the complainant to one Vinay Sharma son of Brij Mohan Sharma, Resident of D/14, D Block, Subhash Park, Uttam Nagar on 17.11.2016. 

5.                Hon’ble National Commission in HONDA CARS INDIA LTD.  versus JATINDER SINGH MADAN & ANR. IV (2013) CPJ 258 (NC), held as under:

6. We have held in R.P. No. 2562 of 2012, Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. v. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji (Radha Swami) & Anr., decided on 25.9.2013 that once vehicle is sold during pendency of the complaint, complainant does not remain consumer for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act. In that judgment, we have placed reliance on I (2008) CPJ 249 (NC), Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust v. Major Amrit Lal Saini, and judgment dated 23.4.2013 passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 466 of 2008, Mr. Rajiv Gulati v. Authorised Signatory, M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 273 (NC). In this case, as vehicle has been sold by complainant during pendency of appeal which was filed in the year 2007 and decided in the year 2012, complainant ceases to be a consumer under C.P. Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Had Respondent No. 1 brought this fact to the notice of State Commission learned State Commission would not have directed petitioner to replace the steering wheel and gear box assembly and other connected parts because Respondent No. 1 was not possessing vehicle at the time of passing the judgment.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle; even then, learned State Commission wrongly allowed complaint and directed to replace steering etc., though, it had already been replaced twice before filing complaint. Perusal of record reveals that steering gear box was replaced twice before filing complaint and again learned State Commission vide impugned order directed petitioner to replace the steering wheel assembly and other connected parts without any expert report or opinion. We are not inclined to decide this aspect whether by taking vehicle to workshop for 4 to 5 times it would amount to manufacturing defect or not because we have already held that complainant ceases to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and in such circumstances, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole count.

8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 16.4.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 302 of 2007, Jatinder Singh Madan v. Honda Cars India Ltd., is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.”

 

6.                In view of the above, since the complainant has sold the car during the pendency of the complaint, so the complainant ceased to be a consumer.

7.                Otherwise also, the complainant has examined CW-1 Dinesh Mehan, authorised representative. In the cross examination he admitted that he did not know the year of manufacturing of the car; he did not know the date of purchase; he did not know the price of the car; he did not know whether any warranty was given by the opposite parties. He has gone to the extent of saying that he did not know anything about the case. He expressed ignorance as to whether at the time of repair any satisfactory note was given by any representative of the complainant to the opposite parties. He even denied that he did not know as to whether the vehicle has any defect or not.

8.                In view of the above, there is no merit in the claim of the complainant. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

 

Announced: 27.01.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL