1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No. 450/2013 dated 18.09.2019.  

2.      There is a delay of 18 days in filing the present Appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, IA/35/2020, delay is condoned.

3.      In the Complaint Case, it was stated that the Appellant/Complainant had purchased a Mahindra XUV 500 bearing registration No. DL 12CA 2418 from Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. On 06.01.2013, while Appellant’s son Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa was travelling with driver Jaichand to Agra, at about 8:30 a.m., the vehicle met with an accident. On the Yamuna Expressway, a truck bearing registration No. DL 1GC 0210 crashed into the rear side of the vehicle. It was alleged that despite such magnitude of accident, none of the eight airbags deployed in the vehicle. The exposure of risk to all passengers/driver of the vehicle was enormous as the air bags did not deploy. The Appellant’s son reported the aforesaid accident to the nearest Police at Sadabad, janpad Mahamaya Nagar, UP.  The driver of the truck Mr. Budh Prakash was apprehended by the local police. The driver gave a written statement to the police, wherein he admitted his fault in causing the accident to the vehicle from the rear side. Appellant’s son also informed the Mahindra emergency services on phone about the accident, who thereupon sent a crane on 07.01.2013 to pick the damaged vehicle and deliver it to Bhasin Motors, A-13, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi. The vehicle had an insurance bearing cover note No. PO9871583 dated 08.05.2012 issued by ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance. The authorized representative of Respondent No.4 Mr. Bhupendra Rawat, visited the Appellant’s house to investigate the accident case/claim. He took various documents from the Appellant to process the claim. However, the Appellant received no response from the Respondents, despite making various phone calls. The Appellant sent a letter dated 19.03.2013 to Respondent No.2 seeking repair of the vehicle and also complaining the unprofessional and callous attitude of Respondent No.3 owing to the delay in delivery of the vehicle. However, the Appellant did not receive any response from the Respondents. The Appellant again sent an email dated 30.03.2013 to Respondent No. 2 and 3 expressing displeasure and inconvenience. The Appellant sent another email dated 27.06.2013 to Respondent No.2 and 3 again expressing anguish and frustration, as the vehicle had not been repaired for over 6^1/2 months. Respondent No.3, vide email dated 27.06.2013, apologized for the long delay in repairing the vehicle and promised to deliver the vehicle by 03.07.2013. Respondent No.3 then wrote an email dated 02.07.2013 to Appellant seeking documents for processing the claim of the Appellant. The Appellant provided the required documents, vide email dated 02.07.2013. Respondent No.3 sent an email dated 06.07.2013 to the Appellant that the vehicle had been repaired and clearance from Respondent No.4 was awaited to deliver the vehicle. The Appellant visited the workshop of Respondent No.3 on 12.07.2013 to take delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was in a terrible condition for delivery. There were scratches all over the vehicle and none of the fittings had been done properly. Immediately, the Appellant sent an email dated 12.07.2013 to Respondent No.2 and 3 mentioning all the defects that were visible on usual inspection of the vehicle. The Appellant sent another email dated 21.07.2013 to Respondent No.2 and 3  as an executive of Respondent No.3 had informed that gear box of the vehicle was defective and required further repairs.  Respondent No.3 responded, vide email dated 21.07.2013, indicating that they had provided best possible service and delay was not caused owing to their deficient service and suggested that delay was in getting approval  of  Respondent No.4. Since 06.01.2013, the Complainant has been without the vehicle. Respondent No.2 and 3 were incapable of repairing the vehicle and restoring it to its original condition and therefore, were liable to replace the vehicle. The Appellant had been spending money on taxis ever since the accident and Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 never extended the courtesy to offer an alternative mode of transport. The Appellant travelled 50 kilometers every day for work and other purposes. The Appellant had been without a vehicle since 06.01.2013 i.e. almost 212 days. Thus, the Complaint was filed.

4.      During the pendency of the Complaint, Respondent No. 3 moved an application seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the vehicle in question had already been sold to one Mr. Syed Sultan Salauddin in May, 2014, who has further sold the vehicle to another person, i.e., Mr. Mohd Faraz Musarrat Ali. Respondent No.3 placed on record and relied upon a copy of ownership details of the vehicle in question showing the name of the present owner the vehicle in question and stated that the Appellant had received a payment of Rs.10,00,000/- towards sale consideration of the said vehicle. This fact was also admitted by the Appellant in replication to written statement of Respondent No.3. Hence, it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. 

5.      The State Commission, vide order dated 18.09.2019, dismissed the Complaint as the Appellant had sold the vehicle during the pendency of said Complaint. The, Appellant was not held a “consumer” as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

 6.     Being aggrieved of the order passed by the State Commission, the Appellant filed the present Appeal before this Commission.

7. Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant. He reiterated his contentions as stated above and carefully perused the record.

8.      The Appellant had sold the vehicle during the pendency of the Complaint before State Commission, without their prior permission. It is therefore not possible to get the vehicle inspected by an expert to ascertain the defects as mentioned by the Appellant in the Complaint.  The Appellant himself admitted the fact that he sold the vehicle during the pendency of the Complaint in replication to written statement of Respondent No.3. The State Commission, therefore, held that the Appellant ceased to be a “consumer” as defined under the Act. In support of the aforesaid view, the State Commission relied upon the judgement of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Hazoor Mahraj Bala Das Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhi IV (2013) CPJ 444 NC, whereby this Commission held that once the vehicle was sold during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant does not remain a consumer for the purpose of the Act.

In M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh Madan & Anr., this Commission held that when a vehicle in question was sold by the complainant during the pendency of the appeal, the complainant ceases to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and the consumer complaint was dismissed on that sole ground.

 Reliance is also placed on judgement, Mr. Rajiv Gulati Vs. Authorised Signatory, M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors., (FA/466/2008 decided on 23.04.2013), whereby this Commission held that as the vehicle has been sold by the complainant during the pendency of appeal, the complainant ceased to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint was liable to be dismissed.

9.      This Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Shri Manoj Gadi and Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., RP No.2321 of 2008 decided on 08.05.2014 held as follows: -

The respondent should not have sold the said vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings before the National Commission. As observed above, it is not possible to have the order of the State Commission executed because the vehicle no longer remains with the petitioner. The factum of any manufacturing defect being there or not, can also not be ascertained by any expert evidence at this stage. In the case of Rajiv Gulati versus M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. & Ors.(supra), it has been clearly stated that when the vehicle had been sold, it was not possible to establish by cogent evidence that it suffered from any manufacturing defect. In this very case, it has been observed that the depreciated value of the vehicle is presumed to be less than the sale-consideration. This may not be the position in the present case but still, the complainant should have sought the permission of the court before selling the vehicle.

Under these circumstances, when the order of the State Commission cannot be implemented due to the sale of the vehicle by the Complainant, this Appeal is allowed and we order accordingly. The consumer complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.    In view of the above, we find no merits in the present Appeal and dismiss the same, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.