Delhi

StateCommission

CC/280/2014

M/S BENNY IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AUDI INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                        Date of arguments heard : 20.4.2017

Date of Decision : 02.05.2017

Complaint Case No.280/2014

1. M/s. Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd.

B-209 Naraina Industrial, Phase-I

New Delhi-110028

 

2. Mr. Karan Nangia

Director

M/s. Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd.

B-209 Naraina Industrial Area, Phase 1

New Delhi-110028

……Complainants

Vs.

 

1. M/s. Audi India

A Division of Volkswagen Group

Sales India Pvt. Ltd.

3^rd Floor, Silver Utopia

A-Wing, Cardinal Gracious Road

Off Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E)

Chakala 400099 (Maharashtra)

2. M/s. Zenica Cars India Pvt. Ltd.

Orchid Centre

Golf Course Road, Sector-53

Gurgaon 122001 (Haryana)

3. M/s/ Pirelli Tyre Suisse S.A.

Branch Office –India

620, 6^th Floor

International Trade Tower

Nehru Place

New Delhi-110019

4. Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd.

3^rd Floor, Silver Utopia

A-Wing, Cardinal Gracious Road

Off Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E)

Chakala 400099 (Maharashtra)

…Opposite Parties

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

 

 

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

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Anil Srivastava, Member

 

1.             M/s. Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd. an d Mr. Karan Nangla have filed a complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assailing the decision of M/s. Audi India, M/s. Zenica Cars India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Pirelli Tyre Suisse S.A. & Ms. Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd. herein referred the OPs in not settling the claim submitted by them in view to the damage of car. 
2.             The facts of the case are these:-

            The complainant No. 1 engaged in trading in Dairy Equipments, in order to provide the vehicle for personal and official use of their Director, Mr. Karan Nangla who is the complainant No. 2 in this case purchased a AUDI Q3 car manufactured by the OPs bearing registration No. HR-99-SA(T)-5564 through OP-2 for a cost of Rs.39,19,954/-. It is alleged that nine days after purchase of the car when the complainant No. 2 who have been provided a car by the complainant No. 1 was driving the said car between Mayapuri and Subhash Nagar at a speed of about 30 kmph, a front right tyre manufactured by OP-3 burst without any reason resulting in loss of control of the vehicle hitting some parked vehicle and an auto rickshaw. At the time of tyre bust there was neither any frontal impact to the Car, nor was there any divider/obstruction on the road. Thus bursting of the tyre resulted in extensive damage to the brand new car.

            Soon after the incident the OP-1 was informedof the damage done due to the tyre bust. OP did not attend to them as according to them it is not the case of tyre bust rather it was the case of an accident.

3.             Aggrieved by the action of the opposite party and due to the deficiency done, complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-

1. Refund to the complainants the said sum of Rs.39,19,954/- alongwith interest thereon @18% per annum w.e.f. 09.02.2014;
2. Forthwith stop any/all finance installments being claimed by Opposite Party No.4;
3. Compensate the Complainants for the costs incurred by them for hiring Taxis, and alternate mode of transport, on account of non-availability of the Car purchased by them;
4. Compensate the Complainants for the inconvenience, and agony, suffered on account of the aforesaid deficient and defective, service of the Opposite Parties;
5. Compensate the complainants for the legal costs incurred in the matter.

4.             Notices were issued to the OPs. The OPs did not put in appearance despite service of notice. In fact an order was passed to proceed against all the OPs ex-parte in view of the fact that they did not submit written statement within the prescribed time of 30 days.
5.             The OPs have filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the car having being purchased for the use of Directors is not for self use, rather it is for commercial purpose. According to them since the car has been purchased for commercial purpose, the issue involved is not within the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They have also relied on some judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in support of their prayer to this effect.
6.             Reply of the complaint to the application filed by the OP praying for disposal of the case has also been filed stating clearly and categorically that the car has been purchased for personal and official use of the Director and not for the commercial purpose. Whether the car has been purchased for the commercial purpose or otherwise is something that can be decided  based on the evidence of the complainant.
7.             We have perused the records of the case and heard arguments of both sides. For the present in the absence of the evidence led by the complainant we are of the considered view that the application filed by the OP praying for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the purchase of the car is not for personal use, cannot be allowed. We order accordingly and having dismissed the application we direct that complainant to file their evidence in support of their claim that the car has been purchased for personal and official use of the Director and not for commercial use, within eight week with the copy to the OPs.
8.             Matter be listed before this Commission for hearing on 7.11.2017.
9.             Let the copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs as contemplated in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Rule, 1986 read with the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

 

 

(Anil Srivastava)                                                               (O.P. Gupta)

                  Member                                                        Member (Judicial)