Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/242

Ajay Kumar Dhawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Vidy Arthi

27 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

Complaint Case No. 242/2014

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

AJAY KUMAR DHAWAN

S/O DR. S.K. DHAWAN

R/O A-342 GOVINDPURAM,

GHAZIABAD, UP                                                                 COMPLAINANT

 

                                                            VERSUS

 

1. HARPREET MOTORS PVT LTD

TSG COMPLEX, 68/2 SHIV ALI MARG, MOTI NAGAR

NEW DELHI 110015

 

2. HARPREET MOTORS PVT LTD.

PLOT NO. 8/1A, SITE NO. 4

INDUSTRIAL AREA, SAHIBABAD

GHAZIABAD UP 201030

 

3. HARPREET MOTORS PVT LTD

68/2 NAJAFGARH ROAD, MOTI NAGAR CROSSING

NEW DELHI 110015

 

4. FORD INDIA PVT LTD.

THROUGH IT’S PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JOGINDER SINGH HAVING IT’S CORPORATE H.O. AT

S.P. KOIL POST CHENGALPTTU

CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 603204……OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

CORAM :-

 

MS SONICA MEHROTRA, PRESIDENT

MS RICHA JINDAL, MEMBER

MR ANIL KUMAR KOUSHAL, MEMBER

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

24.04.2014 27.07.2023 27.07.2023

Present: None for the  complainant                          

             Proxy counsel Jitesh for OP

         

Order passed byMsRicha Jindal, Member

 

         

1. We find from the record that the complainant was lastly appeared on 31.10.2018.  The complainant was absent on 08.04.2019, 14.10.2019, 06.02.2020, 25.02.2022, 25.05.2022. Today again no one is present on behalf of the complainant. Today counsel for OP informed to this bench that the complainant has already sold his car in question also placed on record the RTO Vehicle information showing RC details according to which present owner of the vehicle in question is not mentioned and further requested for dismissal of complaint.

 

2. However, we are of the view that in view of the above revelation on the part of the OP, 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. vsJatinder 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.  
3. In view of the aforementioned rulings, the complaint is dismissed as infructuous.

 

4. Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

5. Let a copy of this order be given to each party free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.

 

6. File be consigned to the record room after the pronouncement of the order.

 

7. Announced on­ 27.07.2023. 

 

 

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

    Member                        Member                                                        President