Delhi

East Delhi

CC/167/2023

SANDEEP CHAUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S CARS 24 FINANCIAL SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. DUBEY & POOJA KOHLI, ADV.

19 May 2023

ORDER

Case No.        :-         167/2023

Date                :-         19/05/2023

Present           :-         None              

 

 

The matter was fixed yesterday for order on admission but order was not possible yesterday on account of heavy cause list and was fixed for today.

Arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant were heard at length. It is submitted Ld. Counsel for complainant that he approached the OP to purchase Mahindra XUV 500 and also after little conversation, OP offered him, that they would also advance loan on the vehicle and complainant also agreed to the same and as such after taking loan of Rs.7,48,091/- only from the OP, the complainant purchased the IInd hand car from the OP and simultaneously hypothecation agreement was entered on 08.08.21 by which complainant had to make monthly EMIs to the OP. However no such agreement was given to the complainant although he received the same through text messages. It is further submitted that the complainant wanted to return the captioned vehicle on the basis of ‘7 days return policy’ of the OP & zero interest deduction, on the 3^rd day of the purchasing of the vehicle itself, but somehow, the same could not be possible as complainant had spent Rs. 50000/- on the repair of the vehicle, whereas OP wanted to return only Rs. 25000/- and in that process the 7 days policy period expired. Thereafter OP did not take the car back by stating that policy period of 7 days has expired. It is further stated that the complainant could not make the payment of some of the installments and OP accordingly initiated arbitration proceedings and after filing the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Hon’ble Court the possession of the vehicle was taken by Sh. Mukesh kumar who was appointed as receiver of the court.

The complainant in the complaint thereafter have mentioned various facts w.r.t. arbitration proceedings, but it is ultimately stated that the arbitration proceedings were not conducted properly by the Ld. Arbitrator and not only this, even the vehicle was sold during the continuation of the proceedings, whereafter complainant has filed contempt petition against the OP which is still pending.

Coming to the facts of the present complaint it is submitted that complainant is a consumer and certain services which were supposed to given by OP were not given as the OP did not take back the car within 7 days period, the company\OP did not furnish the written agreement of the financed amount and they even did not accept the proposal of the complainant that he is ready to return the vehicle back & therefore it amounts deficiency in services. The complainant claims Rs. 2,17,740/- as damages, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50000/- as litigation cost.

During the arguments as well as in the written complaint filed by the complainant it is clear that subject vehicle have already been sold by the OP after taking the possession. The court has enquired from Ld. Counsel for complainant that if the vehicle was in his name, how the OP could have sold the vehicle upon which it is submitted that car was not in exclusive ownership of the complainant rather it was hypothecated with the OP. Even this fact is presumed to be correct, then also once the vehicle have been sold, i.e. car in question, the complainant does not remain consumer anymore.

 In the matter of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Maharaj Hazoor, Revision Petition No. 2562 of 2012 it was interalia held by the Hon’ble NCDRC.

In the light of above observations, we find that as complainant did not remain consumer after sale of vehicle and he has sold the vehicle without permission of the District Forum.

Earlier in Hashiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. Major Amrit Lal Saini, Equivalent Citations: I(2008) CPJ 249 (NC) the case in Para 12 held as

Another issue which has been agitated before us is that the plot in question has since been sold for a consideration of Rs.10 Lakh out of which way back in 2001, the complainant has received Rs. 6 Lakh and the balance Rs. 4 Lakh later on having transferred his right during the pendency of the complaint. In these circumstances whether the complainant would still remain a consumer or not? We have our serious reservation on this point. Having disposed of the property during the pendency of the complaint, in our view, the complainant would cease to be a consumer.

Accordingly the law is well settled that once the vehicle has been sold, the complainant no more remains consumer and their complaint case before Consumer Commission is not maintainable. The admitted facts of the case are on the same line. Accordingly the complaint is therefore rejected.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 19.05.2023.