DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.514/2010
Ms. Shivani Bhusan nee Dhingra
W/o Sh. Sanyam Bhushan
R/o 209A, Beverly Park- I,
DLF City, Phase- 2, M.G. Road,
Gurgaon ….Complainant
Versus
Honda Seil Cars India Ltd.
3 & 4/48, 2nd Floor, Enkay House,
Malcha Marg, Shopping Complex,
Chankya Puri, New Delhi- 110021
Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
D-196 & 160, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase- I, New Delhi- 110020 …..Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 26.07.2010
Date of Order : 18.12.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
Briefly put, Case of the Complainant is that she purchased Honda Accord Car No. DL 3C 5418 from Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. (OP-1). Complainant noticed some abnormal noise in the engine of the car and therefore took her car to Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.2) for effecting repairs of the engine noise.
It is averred that OP-2 took delivery of the car on 15.03.2010 for effecting repairs and informed the Complainant that the estimated delivery time for the said car would be around 5p.m. on 16.03.2010. However, despite repeated visits and entreaties of the Complainant the car was not repaired by OP-2 for more than three months. On 04.05.2010 OP-2 informed that an order for a part which was to be replaced in the car had been placed on OP-1 and it was only after getting the motor part the car would be repaired and delivered. Aggrieved, on not receiving the repaired vehicle after three and a half months the Complainant approached this Forum and Prayed for the following reliefs.
- Direct the Respondent No. 1 to replace the car with a new car of same model on account of inability to repair the car with extended warranty period.
- In the alternative direct Respondent No. 2 to repair the motor car of Complainant using original new parts within a time bound period to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court with extended warranty.
- Award damages at the rate of Rs.6000/- per day against Respondent No. 2 till such time a new car is given to Complainant or repairs are effected on existing car and the car is made road worthy.
- Award damages of Rs. 3 lakhs for causing mental agony to the Complainant.
- Award costs of complaint.
OP-1 resisted the complaint and filed its written statement. OP-2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 06.03.2012. Complainant filed its evidence by way of affidavit and Evidence of Mr. Amit Sinha, Manager Legal of OP No.1 is filed. Written arguments of the parties are filed.
Before, we go into the merits of the case it is important to know the status of the vehicle as the complaint case pertains to year, 2010. It is noticed that vide order dated 27.10.2017 AR of Complainant admitted the fact that the vehicle was in the possession of the Complainant and it was being plied. AR for the Complainant requested for adjournment for filing the mileage status. However, on 31.01.2018 AR of the Complainant informed the Commission that the vehicle in question has already been sold on 07.12.2015.
Same fact was reiterated by the Complainant on 08.12.2021, after the case was reserved for orders. It is clear from the facts stated that the vehicle in question was sold by the Complainant without seeking permission from the Court and it was also not thought appropriate to inform the Court after selling the vehicle. It is settled law that if the vehicle has been sold by the Complainant during the pendency of the complaint case, the Complainant ceases to be a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
In Ramesh V/s M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and Others NCDRC on 26.04.2019 held
We have held in RP No. 2562 of 2012, TATA Motors Ltd. and another V/s Hazoor Maharaj, Baba Des Raji Chela Baba, Baba Deva Singh Ji and another decided on 25.09.2013 that once vehicle is sold during pendency of the complaint Complainant does not remain Consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act. In that Judgment, we have placed reliance on 1(2008) CPJ 249(NC) Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust V/s Major Amritlal Saini. In another judgment dated 23.04.2013 passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 466 of 2008. Mr. Rajiv Gulati V/s Authorized Signatory, M/s TATA Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. and others. As vehicle has been sold by the Complainant during pendency of appeal, which is filed in the year, 2007 and decided in the year, 2012, Complainant ceases to be a Consumer under Consumer Protection Act. and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Similarly, the Complainant in the instant case had sold the car in the
year, 2015. He neither took permission from the Commission nor deemed fit to inform the Commission after selling the vehicle in question. Consequently, he does not remain a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore without going into the merits of the case, Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
