Haryana

StateCommission

A/256/2016

RAM CHARAN YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

LEO EARTHMOVERS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH ARORA

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No   :      256 of 2016

Date of Institution:       25.03.2016

Date of Decision :       27.04.2016

 

Ram Charan Yadav son of late Shri Chiranji Lal, Resident of Village and Post Office Teekli, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Leo Earthmovers Private Limited, 12/2, Mathura Delhi Road, Faridabad.

2.      J.C.B. India Limited, 23/7, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Rajesh Arora, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Ram Charan Yadav-complainant/appellant, purchased J.C.B. machine (a machine used for digging and excavating), from the Opposite Parties/respondents on August 4^th, 2005 for Rs.19,01,474/-. Alleging it to be defective and having manufacturing defect, the appellant filed complaint No.117 of 2007 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated July 20^th, 2011 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that it (District Forum, Gurgaon) has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The appellant filed appeal No.1259 of 2011 before this Commission and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated September 16^th, 2011 (Annexure A-2) with liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction.

2.      The appellant thereafter filed the instant complaint bearing No.469 of 2011 before the District Forum, Faridabad claiming compensation. Notice being issued, the respondent No.1 did not appear and was proceeded exparte. The respondent No.2 contested complaint by filing reply denying the claim of the appellant.

3.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum, Faridabad, vide order dated February 19^th, 2016 dismissed the complaint. Hence, the instant appeal.

4.      During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the J.C.B. machine has been sold by the appellant. That being so, after selling the machine the appellant ceases to be a consumer and the complaint filed by him is not maintainable. Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered in Honda Cars India Limited versus Jatinder Singh Madan & another, IV (2013) CPJ 258 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by relying upon its earlier judgments 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…...”

5.      The case in hand is squarely covered by Honda Cars India Limited’s case (Supra).

6.      In view of the above, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.  

 

Announced 27.04.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL