CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/197/17

          Date of Institution:-    18.04.2017

          Order Reserved on:- 19.04.2024

          Date of Decision:-      29.04.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Sachin Sharma,

131/14, Onkar Nagar ‘B’

Tri Nagar, Delhi - 110035

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd.

1, Nelson Mandela Road, VasantKunj,

New Delhi – 110070

2. M/s T. R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.

      33, 34 HCMR Complex,

East Gokulpur Main Wazirabad Road,

Near Yamuna Vihar Flyover

Delhi – 110094

3. Maruti Service Station

C-119, Naraina Industrial Area

Phase-1, New Delhi.

.…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 21.10.2015he has purchased Maruti Wagon R Car from OP-2 with the net price of Rs.344960/- after deducting the price of his old WagonR car. The loan on car was taken and paid to OP-2. He discovered that there is jittering problem in the gear shifting of car. There is frequent RPM fluctuation. The steering was hard. On 10.11.2015, he was coming from the court and car abruptly stopped in the middle of road at India Gate. The crane was called in order to tow the car. He informed OP-2 and who advised him to take the car to OP-3.The mechanic of OP-3 has repaired the car. He took the drive after repairs and pointed out the defect to OP-3 and it was assured that defects will be removed on 17.11.2017. He took the car from OP-3 on 17.11.2017 but the problems were not rectified. He has frequently visited the service station on 26.12.2015 and 05.03.2016 but problems were cured. On 30.08.2016, he again visited the OP-3. The defects were acknowledged by OP-3 but failed to rectify the same. OP-3 demanded a payment of Rs.50,000/- to rectify the defects. A legal notice dated 20.02.2017 was issued to the OPs upon which he received a call on 25.02.2017 from OP-3 to bring the car to the service station where again he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- tor remove the defects. He came back from the service station. On 26.02.2017, he again went to the service station of OP-3 where he left the car as the advice of OP-3. He received a message from OP-3 to collect the car. The defects were not cured which were pointed out by OP-3.The car was again handed over to OP-3 to remove the defects but in vain. There is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP-2 did not put the appearance despite due service and accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
3. OP-1 & 3 have filed the joint reply to the effect that complainant has driven the vehicle for more than 54287kms as on 28.09.2017. The complainant would not have plied the vehicle in case of any defect. The OPs can provide service during warranty period. The car was serviced as per terms and conditions of the warranty which expired on 20.03.2017 as car has plied more than 40000kms.The complainant has made vague and baseless allegations. No problem of any kind was reported to authorize workshop of OP-1. The complainant has concocted a story to harass them. No problem was reported by the complainant during first free inspection service of the car. The car was brought for second free inspection service on 26.12.2015 at 4856 kms and proper services of the car was carried out. The third service was carried out on 05.03.2016. On 18.06.2016, the car was brought to paid services at 20343 kms. The car was brought for services on 30.08.2016 at 25474 kms with the problem of excessive playin clutch paddle. The complainant refused for the overhall of the clutch plates. The allegations of demands of Rs.50,000/- are wrong. The complainant himself has denied the necessary repairs of the car. The allegations are false and frivolous.
4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1/1 to CW1/6, CW7/A &B, CW-8, CW-9/A to 9/C.
6. The OP-1 and 3 have filed the affidavit of Sh. GaganEashKoshti, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documentsEx.R-1 to R-10.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and perused the entire material on record.
8. The OP-1 has filed an application during the proceedings that complainant has sold the vehicle in question and complaint be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has conceded during the course of arguments that complainant has sold the vehicle.
9. The complainant has sold the vehicle during the pendency of the complainant without taking permission from this Commission. The complainant does not fall within the category of “Consumer” for the purpose of Act as vehicle in question has sold during the pendency of the proceedings without taking the permission. Support is drawn from Revision Petition No.2622 of 2012 titled M/s Honda Cars India Ltd.Vs. Jatinder Singh Madan&Ors. After relying upon order dated 25.09.2013 passed R. P. No.2562 of 2012 titled Tata Motors Ltd. &Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaja Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba DewaSinghji (Radha Swami) &Anr. And order dated 23.04.2013 passed in Appeal No.466/2008 titled Rajiv GulatiVs. Authorised Signatory by the Hon’bleNational Commission.
10. In view of the above stated discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint of the complainant and accordingly the complaint of the complainant is dismissed without any order as to the cost.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 29.04.2024.