DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.89/2010

M/s ITE India Pvt. Ltd.

I-83, Lajpat Nagar- II,

New Delhi- 110024                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

Continental Auto Services

A-262, Defence Colony,

New Delhi- 110024

Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.

A-1/1, MIDC, Five Star Industrial Area,

Shendra, Aurangabad- 431201                                                                        ….Opposite Party

              Date of Institution    :  08.02.2010     

              Date of Order            :  17.12.2021      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

Briefly put, the case of the Complainant is that it purchased a car Skoda Laura Anbient manufactured by Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) through Continental Auto Services (OP-1) on 31.03.2009 for consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. The vehicle was being used by Complainant’s director, who noticed various manufacturing defects with the vehicle. The problems in the vehicle were brought to the notice of OP-2 in the second week of May, 2009 and the vehicle was sent for repairs after discussion with their authorized representative.

It is averred that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP-1, where a technical engineer informed that there is a technical fault in Skoda Laura and the problem will be rectified following the first service. The Complainant further alleges that the vehicle purchased in the year 2009 has been manufactured in the year 2008 and the said fact was concealed from the Complainant. It is next averred that an authorized representative of OP-1 assured the Complainant that the vehicle will be repaired by the month of June, 2009. It was assured that OP-1 will try to fix up the car; if it does not work OP-1 will replace the vehicle as it was not registered till that date. After repairs the Complainant noticed that OP-1 had increased the RPM on idle engine, which had resulted in engine giving lot of noise and diesel consumption had also increased.

The Complainant being dissatisfied and alleging deficiency of service by OPs approached this Forum with the Prayer to direct OPs to replace the defective car of the Complainant with the latest model. In the alternative for direction to OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- amount spent on purchasing the vehicle alongwith the interest @18%. Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental harassment and humiliation to the Complainant.

OP-1 and OP-2 have filed their reply, Evidence of Mr. Ashish Sharma, Director of the Complainant, Mr. P.N. Joshi, Manager of OP-1 and Mr. Nagesh S Sangle, Manager Legal of OP-2 are filed. Written submissions of the Complainant and OP-2 are on record.

During the course of arguments Complainant’s Counsel was specifically asked whether the vehicle was still owned by the Complainant. After verifying from his client, Counsel informed that the vehicle has already been sold in the year 2011-2012. It is settled law that if the vehicle has been sold by the Complainant during the pendency of the Complaint Case, the Complainant ceases to be a Consumer under The Consumer Protection Act.

In Ramesh V/s M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and Others NCDRC on 26.04.2019 held   

We have held in RP No. 2562 of 2012, TATA Motors Ltd. and another V/s Hazoor Maharaj, Baba Des Raji Chela Baba, Baba Deva Singh Ji and another decided on 25.09.2013 that once vehicle is sold during pendency of the complaint Complainant does not remain Consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act. In that Judgment, we have placed reliance on 1(2008) CPJ 249(NC) Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust V/s Major Amritlal Saini. In another judgment dated 23.04.2013 passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 466 of 2008. Mr. Rajiv Gulati V/s Authorized Signatory, M/s TATA Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. and others. As vehicle has been sold by the Complainant during pendency of appeal, which is filed in the year, 2007 and decided in the year, 2012, Complainant ceases to be a Consumer under Consumer Protection Act. And complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Furthermore, Complainant is alleging manufacturing defect, which could only have been proved by inspection of the vehicle by an Expert. In absence of the Vehicle in question same cannot be determined.

In light of the discussion above Complaint is dismissed.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules.