Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1. Briefly stated, the complainant had taken the Hyundai RSA Programme for her car make Hyundai Verna 2011 model from Opposite Party No.2 through its authorized dealer Opposite Party No.1 for a period of 3 years from 17.12.2016 to 17.12.2019. Under this scheme the OPs were to provide assistant anywhere in India and the OPs were to supply fuel to drive the vehicle to the nearest fuel station in case the vehicle runs out of fuel and in case of contaminated fuel to tow the vehicle to the nearest Hyundai authorized workshop station free of charge with certain terms and conditions as mentioned in para 1 (a) and (b) of the complaint. On 11.8.2019 the complainant had to visit Nanital due to some death in relation at Haldwani. On 12.8.2019 the complainant decided to visit Mukteshwar in  Uttrakhand i.e. 46 Km. away from Nanital and they were to return back in the evening so as to attend bhog ceremony of the relative fixed for early next morning.  It is stated that during visit to Mukteshwar the car of the complainant stopped due to short of fuel. Accordingly the complainant contacted the OPs. The OPs assured the complainant that the required assistance will be provided in next 1 hour. However, the same was not provided by the OPs and the complainant had to stay at Mukteshwar and got the assistance on the next morning only at 8 a.m through some local person who told the complainant that he procured the diesel from one of unauthorized sources locally.   It is alleged that due to the negligent act of OPs the entire programme of the complainant spoiled and later the complainant noticed that due to use of adulterate diesel the vehicle of the complainant started giving black smoke and reduced performance. The complainant lodged complaint with OPs through various emails and only thereafter in December 2019 the engineers of Opposite Party No.1 checked the car of the complainant and it was informed the complainant telephonically by Opposite Party No.1 that they could not repair the vehicle as the repair cost involved is around Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the forced circumstances the complainant had to sell her car in a thruway price. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the vehicle stopped in the middle of jungle much away from the habitation/town which has been admitted by the complainant herself and despite all efforts were made to provide assistance i.e. offer of towing the vehicle and fuel supply but keeping in view the location of the vehicle in jungle being night time, the fuel was supplied with some delay.  It is denied that the complainant was supplied adulterated diesel. It is stated that the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove her version. It is also denied that the vehicle of the complainant was having black smoke and AC problem. The complainant approached the answering respondent only four time i.e. from 30.8.2019 to 10.12.2019 (the period between receiving alleged adulterated diesel and selling vehicle to Sumandeep Kaur) and during those visit no defect of black smoke or AC was found.  The copies of invoice of the visits of the complainant is attached as Annexure R-1/2 (colly). All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. The Opposite Party No.2 in its reply took preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant was not owner of the vehicle in question when the complaint was filed i.e. in July 2020 whereas it is admitted fact of the complainant that she had sold the car in January 2020.  Copy of Vahan Report is attached as Ex. OP2/1.  It is stated that the vehicle in question went short of fuel at a remote area where there is no nearby petrol pump and still the fuel was provided to the complainant. Even the complainant was given option of towing the vehicle which she denied. It is averred that AGA  Assistance i.e. the Allianz is the service facilitator of RSA program who has not been impleaded as a party to the present complaint. It is denied that the complainant was supplied adulterated fuel which cause  black smoke.  The complainant on 19.8.2019 after 7 days of tour of Muketshwar reported her vehicle for Accidental repair, thus the allegation that any such damage was caused due to usage of fuel supplied is contradictory. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.  Before going into merit of the case it is to be determined whether the complainant falls within the ambit of consumer or not as the Opposite Party No.2 has raised preliminary objection that prior to filing of the complaint the complainant sold the vehicle in question to one Sumandeep Kaur.
8. It is an admitted fact that the complainant sold  her vehicle to one Sumandeep Kaur. The instant complaint was filed by the complainant in month of  July 2020 whereas a thorough examination of Annexure C-9 shows that the complainant sold her vehicle to one Sumandeep Kaur  in January 2020 i.e. well prior to the filing of the instant complaint.  The Hon’ble National Commission in M/S. Honda Cars India Ltd. vs Jatinder Singh Madan on 11 October, 2013  held as under:-