APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Manoj Gadi, In person For the Respondent NEMO PRONOUNCED ON : 8th MAY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. A-07/663, ata Motors Ltd. versus Manoj Gadi & Anr. vide which, the order dated 25.07.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sheikh Sarai-II, in complaint no. DF-VII/117/07 was modified. The District Forum vide said order had allowed the complaint of complainant/respondent no. 1, directing the petitioner/OP No. 2 to replace the defective car with a new car of the same model with fresh warranty and also to pay a sum of `5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and `5,000/- as cost of litigation. The State Commission vide impugned order directed that instead of replacing the defective vehicle, the petitioner M/s. Tata Motors shall refund the cost of the vehicle to the complainant on the return of vehicle, after completing the formalities of transfer of registration certificate in the name of the petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 / complainant purchased a Tata Indigo LS- Diesel Car on 29.06.2006 from respondent no. 2 M/s. Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. According to the complainant, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 sold a second hand car to him that started giving problems immediately after purchase. He reported the matter to the OPs and he was assured that the defects in the vehicle would be removed. However, the problem could not be rectified, although the vehicle was subjected to repeated repairs. The power steering of the vehicle was changed, but still the problem continued. On 23.09.2006, the rack and pinion were changed; on 18.11.2006, steering column was changed; on 8.01.2007, power steering and pumps were changed, but the defects could not be rectified and noise continued from the steering as well as from the shockers. Within six months of purchase, the paint from the roof of the vehicle started peeling off, giving rise to the suspicion that an old car had been sold after repainting. The OPs denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of both the parties, directed that the vehicle should be replaced with a new car by the petitioner and a sum of `25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and `5,000/- as cost of litigation should be paid to him. The present petitioner preferred appeal before the State Commission against this order. Vide impugned order, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum and directed that the cost of the vehicle should be refunded to the complainant after completing the formalities of transfer of registration certification in the name of the petitioner. 3. During the course of hearing before us, notices were sent to complainant /respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 dealer for appearance. The complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in person. None appeared on behalf of respondent no.2. On 08.08.2013, at the time of hearing before us, the complainant stated that he had already sold the vehicle, in question, on 25.12.2011. 4. The arguments in this case were finally heard on 18.09.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complaint was required to be dismissed, because the complainant / respondent no. 1 had already sold the vehicle without the permission of the Court. He has drawn our attention to the order passed by the National Commission in ajiv Gulati versus M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. & Ors.[FA No. 466 of 2008 decided on 23.04.2013]. In the said case, the National Commission observed that since the vehicle had been sold during the pendency of the proceedings before the consumer fora, the complainant was not entitled for any compensation in the absence of material evidence of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 5. In reply, the complainant/respondent no. 1 stated that he had sold the said vehicle as it was getting rusted. He stated that there were defects in the vehicle from the very beginning. Many parts of the vehicle were changed by the OPs including the power steering. He was, therefore, entitled to get compensation for the defects in the vehicle. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The State Commission vide impugned order directed that the petitioner should refund the cost of the vehicle on the return of the vehicle after completing the formalities of transfer of registration certificate in the name of the petitioner. Under the present circumstances, when the vehicle has already been sold by the complainant/respondent no. 1, the execution of the order passed by the State Commission is not possible, because the vehicle no longer remains with the complainant. 7. The complainant/respondent tried to explain his action of selling the vehicle saying that he had to sell the same as the vehicle, being old, was getting rusted. 8. It may be observed that it may not be possible for the owner of a vehicle to retain the same for indefinite period or till the proceedings pending in the courts are finalised. The Transport Authorities also do not provide the registration certificate or fitness certificates beyond a particular age of the vehicle. It can also be stated that the status of complainant as consumer, vis-a-vis, the OPs has to be considered on the day of the cause of action or filing of the complaint and a person may not lose that status merely because of the sale of the vehicle due to any reason. However, in the current case, the facts and circumstances show that 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. 9. Under these circumstances, when the order of the State Commission cannot be implemented due to the sale of the vehicle by the complainant, this revision petition is liable to be allowed and we order accordingly. The consumer complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.