DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 626/2012
Shri Avinash Singh Bhati,
B-64, Qutub Enclave,
DDA Flats, Phase-I,
Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi-110016. ….Complainant
Versus
- M/s Bhasin Motors
(A Division of Bhasin Motors India Pvt. Ltd.)
Volkswagen Delhi South,
N-12, New Delhi South Extn. Part-I,
New Delhi-110049.
- M/s Volkswagen Delhi South
A-13, Mohan Co-op, Indl. Estate,
Mathura Road, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110044.
- Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd.
Level-4, Bldg. No.-3,
North Avenue, Maker Maxity,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Near Family Court, Bandra East,
Mumbai-400051. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 20.12.12 Date of Order : 14.01.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
1. Very briefly the facts leading to filing of the complaint are that the complainant, Shri Avinash Singh Bhati had purchased a Vento 1.6 Petrol car from M/s Bhasin Motor (OP-1), manufactured by Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3). As per complainant it developed defects with great regularity causing disruption in the running of the vehicle. It also lead to frequent visits to the workshop and making payment for repairs and spare parts by M/s Volkswagen Delhi South (the service centre OP-2). When the matter was taken up with the OPs and it did not get sorted out, complainant approached the Forum with the present complaint.
2. Without going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention certain facts regarding the complaint.
3. While perusing the Daily orders it is noticed that in the order dated 02.06.2015 the complainant has stated that engine of the vehicle in question had been replaced by OP-3 in June 2013 and the complainant has submitted that only prayer now remained is with regard to the payment of compensation towards mental agony etc.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of final arguments the complainant submitted that the vehicle in question has been sold, without any prior intimation to the Forum. It is further noticed that the complainant has prayed for replacement of the defective car and to suitably compensate him for the mental agony, harassment suffered at the hands of OPs.
5. It is evident that without waiting for the conclusion of the present complaint, the complainant sold off the vehicle in question. The subject matter of the dispute is no longer in the possession of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant ceases to be a ‘Consumer’.
Further the complainant might have restricted his claim to compensation only, as it is noticed in the proceedings dated 2/6/15 but the complaint was never amended to this effect.
6. Moreover the prayer clause of the complainant is to replace the defective car. The Forum cannot proceed with the complaint as the vehicle in question has been sold off, therefore, it cannot be replaced.
7. Hence from the discussion above, the complaint is dismissed on these grounds alone.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 14.01.19.
