Haryana

Ambala

CC/121/2020

Gursev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Sachdeva

07 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	121 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	12.06.2020
Date of decision	:	07.02.2023

 

Gursev Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Hakam Singh, resident of 110 Panjola, Naneola, District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd., Village Mohra, Tehsil and District Ambala through its Prop./owner.
2. TATA Motors Ltd., 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

                   Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:       Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.      

                     Shri S.R.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.     

                     Shri Shekhar Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

           The application dated 18.07.2022 has been filed by the applicant/complainant, for grant of necessary permission to bring on record the changed circumstances in the above referred case.  In his application, it has been stated that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and the same was lying with the OPs since March 2020. Applicant/complainant has received a letter dated 18.06.2022 from the Counsel for the OPs stating therein that the vehicle in question, which was in the custody of the OPs caught fire and has totally lost. The said fact has been confirmed by the applicant/complainant after visiting the premises of the OPs and he also took photographs of the said burnt vehicle. It is prayed that application may be allowed and the same may be read as part of the main complaint case. 

          Reply to the said application has been filed by the respondent/OP No.1, stating therein that the vehicle was lying parked in working condition since 04.03.2020, due to callous and false stand of the complainant.  All of a sudden fire took place in the premises of the OP No.1 due to heavy dust storm and the vehicle in question alongwith other vehicle standing there caught fire, which was beyond the control of OP No.1. OP No.1 has contacted complainant for settlement of his claim in that regard, by way of sending notice to him to the effect that the matter shall be settled as and when the insurance claim is settled. It is prayed that the present application may be dismissed with costs.

          Respondent/OP No.2 also filed reply to the said application stating therein that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, yet, because the said vehicle has burnt and is total loss, due to fire in the premises of OP No.1, as such, the matter shall be settled as and when the insurance claim is settled by the insurance company and prayed for dismissal of the present application.

                   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.               

                   It may be stated here that since the fact that the vehicle in question has burnt in the fire at the premises of OP No.1 and has suffered total loss, is not in dispute, as such, in our considered opinion, the relief sought by the applicant/complainant in the main consumer complaint qua directions to the OPs to replace the defective vehicle has become redundant/infructuous. Under these circumstances, we allow this application and the changed circumstances have been considered by this Commission and documents pertaining thereto are taken on record.

                   However, in view of above, since we have held in preceding part of this order that in view of the fact that the vehicle in question has burnt in the fire at the premises of OP No.1 and has suffered total loss, as such, in our considered opinion, the relief sought by the applicant/complainant in the main consumer complaint qua directions to the OPs to replace the defective vehicle with new one has become redundant/infructuous and there will be no useful purpose to continue with it, as such, the main consumer complaint bearing no.121 of 2020, titled as Gursev Singh Vs. Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Another, is dismissed with no order as to cost, being not maintainable, at this stage, with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint, as per law, in case his dispute qua payment of the total loss vehicle is not paid to him. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on:07.02.2023.

                                     

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President