Delhi

StateCommission

A/19/2016

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. ROMI SIKAND & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 06.09.2016

Date of Decision : 15.09.2016

FA No. 19/2016

 

(Arising out of the order dated 03.09.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.1961/03 by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

Maruti Suzuki India Limited,

(Formerly known as Maruti Udyog Limited)

Registered office at:

Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.                                                            …..........Appellant

 

Also at:

 

Maruti Sales and Service (Delhi),

C-119, Naraina Industrial Area,

Phase-I, New Delhi-110028. 

VERSUS

 

1.         Mr. Romi Sikand,

A-1/12, 2^nd Floor,

Shakti Nagar Extension,

Delhi-110052.

 

2.         M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.,

            Competent House,

            F-14, Cannaught Place,

            New Delhi.                                                                                        ….....Respondents

                                                                

CORAM

 

O. P. Gupta - Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 O.P. Gupta - Member (Judicial)

1.         The present appeal challenges order dated 03.09.2015 passed by the District Forum-VI in CC No.1961/03 vide which the complaint was allowed and OP was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation with 9% interest from the date of purchase till the payment. Delay of 48 days in filing appeal is condoned as appellant has been able to make out a good case for setting aside the impugned order.

2.         The facts given in the complainant were respondent purchased Maruti Esteem Car in 2002 from OP-2 for Rs.4.97 lac, OP-1 is manufacturer.  The complainant noticed defect in painting of the car just after 13 days. The District Forum found that none of the job card during free service proved any functional defect which was not attended. Thus, no case for replacement of the car or return of value of the car was made out.  However,  the painting work being not perfect left a impression of deficiency on the mind of the complainant which caused annoyance and that is why compensation was allowed.

3.         The appellant moved an application that after disposal of the complaint by District Forum, it moved an application under RTI Act to verify the whereabouts and ownership of the vehicle. It came to know that complainant sold the vehicle to Smt. Sonia Malhotra during pendency of case before the District Forum and she suppressed the said facts from the District Forum. The appellant has attached copy of reply dated 18.03.2016 received under RTI Act according to which the respondent was first owner, Ms. Sonia Malhotra was second owner having got the vehicle transferred in her name on 30.03.2009, Mr. Nitin Manchanda was the third owner and got the vehicle transferred in his name on 13.10.2006.  The present owner was Mr. Man Mohan.  Thus, according to it, the respondent no more remained a consumer.

4.         I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments on application.  Counsel for respondent admitted during arguments that the car had been sold by the respondent during pendency of case before the District Forum. Even otherwise the said fact established by reply dated 28.12.2015 under RTI Act as well as reply filed by respondent to application for additional evidence moved by appellant.

5.         The counsel of appellant had relied upon the decision of National Commission in Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh Madan & Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 258 in which it was held  that once the vehicle is sold during pendency of complaint, complainant does not remain consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act. Similar view was taken by the National Commission in Ansar Pasha Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. & Ors. IV (2011) CPJ 107, in R.P. No.2562/2012 decided on 25.09.2013 titled as Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Raj & Anr., in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Manoj Gadi & Anr. II (2014) CPJ 665.

6.         Applying above law, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

7.         A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. One copy be sent to the District Forum for information.

8.         File be consigned to Record Room.