Haryana

StateCommission

A/233/2016

DARSHAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARMONY HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

KRISHAN SINGLA

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      233 of 2016

Date of Institution:      17.03.2016

Date of Decision :       13.01.2017

 

Darshan Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Dhari, Resident of House No.109, Sector-21, Panchkula.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Harmony Honda, Joshi Autolinks Private Limited, Plot No.389, Industrial Area, Phase I, Panchkula, District Panchkula, Haryana, through its Manager.

2.      M/s Honda Cards India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., Pin Code-201306, through its Manager.

3.      M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited IFFCO Tower, 4^th and 5^th Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon-Pin Code-122001, Haryana, through its Manager.

 

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Krishan Singla, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                             Shri Ankur Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The un-successful complainant is in appeal against the order dated January 27^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.                Darshan Kumar-complainant/appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he purchased a new Honda Passenger Car Amaze 1.5 VX MT from M/s Harmony Honda, Joshi Autolinks Private Limited-respondent No.1 on 18.04.2013. He also obtained extended warranty which was valid up to 4^th year or 80,000 kilometers.   The car was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited-respondent No.3 for the period 18.04.2013 to 17.04.2014.

3.                On 02.07.2013 the car stopped on road in Sector-5, Panchkula. Some other vehicle hit the car from behind causing damage to the car in question. The complainant informed the opposite parties. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the car and assessed loss at Rs.4,15,368/-. A Proforma invoice dated 05.07.2013 was issued wherein the total amount was mentioned Rs.2,59,665/-. On 13.07.2013 the respondent No.1 asked for replacement of the engine of the car with new one to be transported from Japan valuing Rs.2.00 lacs and received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as part payment vide receipt No.1535 dated 18.07.2013. The respondent No.1 had assured that no expenses would be incurred by the complainant in terms of parts of the vehicle as well as labour. The complainant visited the workshop of the respondent No.1 but the car was not handed over to him after replacement of engine and other necessary service and rather the respondent No.1 raised demand of parking charges @ Rs.500/- per day. The complainant alleged that the respondent No.1 wrongly charged Rs.50,000/- from him as advance. 

4.                The respondents/opposite parties No.1 and 2 contested complaint. Opposite Party/respondent No.3 was proceeded exparte.

5.                The opposite party No.1 in its written version stated that the car was sold subject to conditions of warranty and extended warranty but in the present case the engine of the car was damaged due to entering of water while passing through water logged area. On 01.07.2013 the car was tested and it was found that there was engine missing. As per Proforma invoice, net amount of the expenses was assessed at Rs.2,59,665/- including the damages caused to the engine and its parts which included general assembly of the engine with gasket kit and the respondent No.1 as a repairer had rightly asked for advance payment of Rs.50,000/- for ordering the parts of the engine. The complainant was never assured for change of parts of the engine free of costs. Denying the allegations, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                Opposite Party/respondent No.2 in its separate written version denied that any assurance was given to the complainant that every type of risk or mishap or vehicle problem or defect was covered. The ingress of water had resulted in damage to the engine. In absence of there being any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the opposite party was absolutely not at all liable to repair the vehicle. Denying the claim of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

7.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

8.                During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant sold the vehicle on 06.01.2017 and has applied for transfer of ownership to the registering authority, Nalagarh, District Solan (H.P.) after seeking No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Registering Authority, Panchkula.  

9.                At the outset, the question arises for consideration is as to whether after selling the vehicle, the complainant falls under the definition of Consumer or not?

10.              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.”

 

11.              In view of the above, since the complainant/appellant has sold the car during the pendency of appeal/complaint, therefore he ceases to be a consumer and the complaint filed by him deserves dismissal.

12.              Hence the appeal stands dismissed.

 

Announced 13.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL