09.04.2024

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

1.       A complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986 filed seeking direction against OP-1 & 2 to refund the invoice amount of Rs. 5,94,559/- with interest from the date of payment, in addition to pay amount of Rs. 5 Lakh towards the mental, physical harassment, pain and mental agony etc., or to replace the vehicle with new branded car and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-.

2.       It is stated that complainant is the owner of Maruti Swift Dezire having registration no. DL3CBS8446, and the same was purchased on 01.08.2013 from OP-1. It is alleged by the complainant that the brakes of the vehicle in question was malfunctioning and not working properly despite the fact that the vehicle had covered only 3273 km. On 01.06.2014 the complainant with his family members was returning from home after attending some family function, in the night suddenly brakes of the car got failed, fortunately, no unpleasant incident occurred and complainant gave his car to OP-2 on 02.06.2014 for repairing.

3.       It is further alleged by the complainant that during the repairing OP-2 cause certain damages to the car in respect to the bonnet, front left door, panel, rare left door panel and both bumpers.  On raising the objections OP-2 fully repaired the damages as well as the brakes and handed over the car on 09.06.2014 to the complainant.

4.       Again on 22.06.2014 the brakes of the car got failed and luckily again the complainant and his family members survived. Complainant deposited the vehicle with OP-2 on 23.06.2014. On the same day OP-2 got the brake repaired and handed over the vehicle to him. After inspecting  the vehicle complainant found that the entire repairing work carried by OP-2 leads to the depreciation to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that due to deficiency in service on the part of OP there is continuous threat to his life in driving the vehicle in question.  It is further prayed that the present complaint be allowed in the aforesaid circumstances and relief claim be granted.

5.       Both the OPs filed their separate respective written statement thereby denying any deficiency in service on their part. It is stated by OP-1 that it had fulfilled its obligations under warranty as per the terms and condition of the warranty. The complainant has executed the satisfaction note after obtaining the services on 03.02.2014, 07.04.2014, 09.06.2014 in favor of OP-2. It is further stated that the vehicle in question is defect free and in perfect road worthy condition. The complaint is without any cause of action, hence, liable to be dismissed.

6.       OP-2 filed its separate written statement wherein it is stated that OP-2 only provided services to the complainant. OP-2 fully repaired the car including the brake defect and the car was returned back to complainant on 09.06.2014. Brake of the car again failed on 22.06.2014 and again the car was repaired and handed over to the complainant on 23.06.2014. Since then the vehicle  is in possession of the complainant  and he has been using the vehicle regularly and no complaint of any defect in the brake system has been made thereafter. It is further stated that the present complaint is without any cause of action, hence, be dismissed in favor of OP-2.

7.       Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of both the OPs.  

8.       Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit. In the affidavit contents of complaint reiterated.  He has placed on record copy of invoice, copy of letter dated 09.06.2014, copy of job card dated 03.02.2014, 04.06.2014 and cash memo dated 23.06.2014.

9.       OP-1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. A.S Sidhu, Territory Service Manager. In the affidavit contents of written statement reiterated. OP-1 relied on job cards, satisfaction note issued by complainant warranty terms and conditions.

10.     OP-2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. V.M. Chawla qualified Automobile Engineer. In the affidavit contents of written statement reiterated. OP-2 relied on copy of copy of job card and satisfaction note issued by complainant.

11.     Written arguments filed by complainant and OP-1 & 2.

12.     During the course of the both the OPs strongly challenged the maintainability of the present complaint and further stated that the present complaint should be dismissed as the complainant sold the vehicle in question during the pendency of the present complaint.

13.     We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. D.K. Sinha and Sh. Mayank Pandey proxy counsel for Sh. Pawan Kumar counsel for OP-1. Sh. Hemant proxy for Sh. Subhash Chawla counsel for OP-2 and perused the record.

14.     OP-2 has strongly challenged the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that during the pendency of the present complaint the complainant sold the vehicle in question without seeking the permission of this Commission, hence, ceased to be a consumer,

15.     On the aforesaid issue of selling the vehicle during the pendency of the present complaint without the permission of the commission, we are guided by Hon’ble National Commission in RP No. 612/2016 titled as Audhut Parar vs. Dempo Marketing decided by National Commission decided on 15.03.2016 that one a vehicle is sold the complainant no more remain consumer. Similar view has been taken in RP NO. 158/2015 General Motor India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A. Jayakrishnan decided on 18.09.2015 (NC). Again in RP NO. 2562/2012 Tata Motors Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba decided on 25.03.2013 (NC).

Admittedly, during the pendency of the present complaint the complainant sold the vehicle to Rana Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 16.12.2023 and has concealed this fact from this Commission, complainant ceased to be consumer.

16.     On merit ,we have gone through the complainant and found that  as and when complainant approached OP-2, the OP-2 has provided the satisfactory service in respect to the vehicle in question. The vehicle history placed on record by OPs as well as the satisfaction note issued by complainant clearly support the contention of the OPs.

On two occasions the brakes of the vehicle got failed, firstly on 01.06.2014, the brakes  was duly repaired by OP to the satisfaction of complainant thereafter again  on 22.06.2014 brakes of car got failed and OP-2 immediately repaired the same and handed over the vehicle in a satisfactory condition to complainant on 23.06.2014. Since 23.06.2014 till today complainant has failed to satisfy this Commission in respect to any defect in the vehicle in question as alleged in the complaint. As such we are of the considered view that due to lack of documentary evidence complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service against OPs.

17.     In view of the discussion as well as the judgment cited above we are of the considered opinion that complainant does not fall under the category of consumer as such the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, hence, dismissed.

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   09.04.2024.

Sanjay Kumar             Nipur Chandna                     Rajesh

               President                            Member                         Member