Delhi

StateCommission

CC/13/244

M/S DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

      IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision: 30.11.2016

 

Complaint Case No. 244/2013

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                M/s DARCL Logistics Ltd.

          M-2, Himland House,

          Karampura Commercial Complex,

          New Delhi

               

……Complainant     Versus     1. M/s Audi India Ltd.    3 North Avenue,    Level 4, Maker Maxity,    Bandra Kurla Complex,    Bandra (E)    Mumbai- 400051   2. Zenica Card India (P) Ltd.     Narsinghpur Industrial Area     6 KM Milestone, NH-8     Gurgaon-122001                                                                      …….Opposite Parties

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

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

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

      

 

        This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased a car bearing No. HR 26 BD 0081 from OP-2. It is alleged that there were some defects in the car. The details of the alleged defects are given in paras 4 to 10 of the complaint. A prayer is made seeking directions against OPs to replace the defective car with a new car or to direct the OPs to refund the price of the car. A compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- is also claimed.

        The complaint is at the stage of service on OP-1. OP-1 could not be served in the matter as the complainant did not furnish its fresh address.

        Ld. counsel for OP-2 states that the car in question has been sold by complainant to one Sh. Nikhil Bansal. Counsel for the OP-2 has placed on record relevant documents in this regard.

        The said position is not denied by Ld. counsel for the complainant.

        No permission from this Commission has been taken by the complainant. The complainant has also suppressed the said fact forum us.

        Since the car has been sold by the complainant, the complainant is no more a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Reliance is placed on the judgement of National Commission in RP No. 2562/12 in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba. The complaint therefore stands dismissed.

        File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member