Delhi

StateCommission

EA/20/2017

ALOK GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BMW INDIA PVT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Mar 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  23.03.2018

Date of Decision :  02.04.2018

Execution No. 20/2017

Shri Alok Gupta,

Proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Balaji Overseas,

At-S-382, 2^nd Floor, Greater Kailash-I,

New Delhi.                                                                        ….......Decree Holder

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. BMW India Pvt. Ltd.

Building No.8, Tower-B, 7^th Floor,

Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

Through its Director.

 

2. Shri Yadur Kapur, Director,

M.s, Deutsche Motoren pvt. Ltd.

 

3. Shri Deepak Jain, Director

M/s. Deutsche motoren Pvt. Ltd.

 

Both JD No.2 & 3 are at

 

27-B, Shivaji Marg,

Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.

 

Also at:

 

H-5/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044.

                                                                             ….....Judgement Debtors

                                                                

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                       Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

           Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

Judgement

          The present execution seeks to execute order dated 14.03.2013 passed by this Commission in CC No.358/10 vide which the JD was directed to remove the defects in engine of the vehicle free of cost and if it was not possible to remove the defects of engine, vehicle was to be replaced by new engine of the same make and model and thereafter deliver the vehicle to the complainant in the presence of technical expert mutually agreed upon by the complainant and OPs.  The expert was to certify that the engine was free from all defects which would be final for all purposes.

 

          The JD No.2 & 3 moved an application dated 21.03.2018 stating that the JD has already carried out and removed the defects which is established from the documents filed alongwith the said application.  The car was lying in the workshop for the last seven years for which the only person responsible was DH.  The DH could verify the working of the engine in the presence of technical experts.  However, as regards other defects which might have accrued during the said seven years like rusting, tyre replacement, painting etc., the JDs are not responsible.  The DH was at liberty to take the car and get remaining defects removed from any other workshop and/or to pay to JDs for removing all those defects.  Since engine has been rectified, nothing survive in the execution. Similar statement was made on behalf of the JD on the last date of hearing. So it has been prayed that nothing survive in the execution and same may be dismissed as satisfied.

          The counsel for DH submitted that other defects which have accrued during seven years of pendency of case and execution are also liable to be rectified by JDs. We do not agree. Those defects could not be and were not subject matter of the complaint case.  Cause of action for the same accrued to the DH after filing of the case.  For that the DH can seek their proper remedy by fresh complaint.  Executing court cannot go behind the decree. There are no directions in the decree to remove those defects.

          The application of the JDs is allowed and execution is disposed of as satisfied.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

         

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                            (O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                 MEMBER (JUDICIAL)