Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/444

Inderjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Autovikas Sales & Services - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III,

WEST DISTRICT, C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

CC No.444/2014

 

Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur

W/o Mr. Jasvinder Singh Narula,

R/o C5D/51B, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-110058

 

                                                                                                               .……..Complainant

VERSUS

The Manager

Auto Vikas Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd.,

12A, Shivaji Marg,

New Delhi-110015

 

The Managing Director

General Motors India Pvt Ltd,

6^th Floor, Tower A, Global Business Park,

Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sikanderpur,

Sector 26, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002                                                .........Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms. Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Present: Mr. Shanti Prakash, counsel for the  complainant                                       11.01.2023

                Mr. Vikas Gupta, counsel for OP.2                        

 

            An application has been filed  in this case by OP.2 stating that as per their knowledge, the vehicle embroiled in controversy in the present case  has been sold during the pendency of this Complaint. In reply to the application, complainant  has filed objections in which it is stated that there were long pending defects in the car which were not rectified and since the vehicle was a diesel one,  in compliance of orders of National Green Tribunal, the vehicle had to be sold

                                                                        : 2 :                                                          CC 444/2014

 as its life was going to expire in March, 2022.   During oral arguments in the case today, Mr. Shanti Prakash, counsel for the complainant submits that the present complaint is pending before this Commission since long and this fact may be taken into consideration. There was no fault of the complainant as he was bound by the orders of NGT in this regard.  The complainant had no option left except to sell his car as it had outlived its life of 10 years.

However, we are of the view that in view of the above revelation/admission on the part of the complainant, no cause of action survives in the complaint. In this regard we are bound by the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of M/S. Honda Cars India Ltd. vs Jatinder Singh Madan, (Revision Petition NO.2622/2012, decided on 11 October, 2013) wherein  it was held that since the complainant has sold the vehicle, the complaint is rendered infructuous as the complainant is no more a ‘consumer’.  This position has been reiterated by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Ramesh Vs. Skoda Auto India P. Ltd & ORs, 2019 SCC Online NCDRC 465.   

In view of the aforementioned rulings, the complaint is dismissed as infructuous. File be consigned to record room.

 

 (Richa Jindal)                           (Anil Kumar Koushal)                                (Sonica Mehrotra)

    Member                                       Member                                                    President