Present :- None for complainant.

                    Shri Debashish advocate for OP-1.

                   Complaint passed over several times since morning. The complainant and his counsel failed to appear and file reply of the application of the opposite party no.1 for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant sold the vehicle in question during pendency of the complaint. Therefore, the complainant is no longer a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable.

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation on account of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On 03.10.2017 the opposite party no.1 filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant sold the vehicle in question during pendency of the complaint. The complaint today on 25.10.2017 is fixed for filing reply by the complainant of the application of the opposite party no.1. But none put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. None was present on behalf of the complainant on previous hearing also.

               We have heard learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly. The opposite party no.1 in support of the application has filed copy of registration certificate of Car no.UP14BN7711, Engine No.D620XXXXX according to which complainant is no more owner of the vehicle. The Hon’ble National Commission in order dated 11.10.2013 passed in Revision Petition No.2622 of 2012 titled  M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh Madan & Ors. after relying upon order dated 25.9.13 passed in R. P. No. 2562 of 2012 titled “ Tata Motors Ltd. &Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaja Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singh ji (Radha Swami) & Anr.” and order dated 23.04.2013 passed in Appeal No.466/2008 titled “Rajiv Gulati Vs. Authorised Signatory by the Hon’ble National Commission held that once vehicle is sold  during the pendency of the complaint, complainant does not remain consumer for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act.

                 There is no order on record of permission to the complainant to sale vehicle during the pendency of the complaint. On perusal of the registration certificate it reveals that the vehicle in dispute is in name of Singh Babu Nuvala. Therefore, the complainant is no longer owner of the vehicle in dispute.      

                 The complainant has sold the vehicle in question during the pendency of the complaint.   Therefore, the complainant does not remain consumer for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Resultantly, the complaint is hereby dismissed. Copy of order be given Dasti. File be consigned to record.