Delhi

North

CC/10/2024

NUTAN KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NISSAN RENAULT FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- 1 (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe-II Building,Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi-110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 10/2024

In the matter of

Mrs. Nutan Kumari

At 687, Western Wing

Tis Hazari Courts Complex

Delhi-110054                                                ...                Complainant

VERSUS

Nissan Renault Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Managing Director

VBC Solitaire, 5th floor 47 & 49,

Bazullah Road, T Nagar,

Chennai-600017                                            ...       Opposite Party No.1

 

You We and Cars

Through its Proprietor/ General Manager

D-12 Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-1, Delhi-110020                                     ...       Opposite Party No. 2

 

ORDER

20/02/2024

 

Present: None for Complainant

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar

1. We have heard the arguments of Shri R K Sharma, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant on admissibility of this Complaint on the last date of hearing. Briefly stated, the Complainant herein, who is practicing as an Advocate in Delhi Courts and having her chamber at Tis Hazari Court Complex, has filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service primarily by M/s You We and Cars (OP-2 herein) while repairing the vehicle bearing no. MH09DF2021 and has sought consequential relief and compensation.
2. At the very onset, it is to be noted that the Complainant has made M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. as Opposite Party No. 1, but nowhere in the complaint, has the role of the said OP-1 been innumerate. The said OP-1 is also not the manufacturer of the vehicle in question as the said OP-1 is in the business of financing vehicles as captive financer for Nissan Renault brand cars in India. The said OP-1 does not manufacture or sell or service the cars. Hence, the role of the said OP-1 is not clear in the entire complaint. M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., is neither a necessary party nor the proper party in the entire consumer dispute as raised by the Complainant herein. Arraying M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. as OP-1 in the complaint clearly is misjoinder of party. Misjoinder of party is a valid ground for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Before proceeding further, we would also like to examine the fact that whether the Complainant herein is covered under the definition of “consumer” as defined in section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. For the sake of convenience, the said provision is reproduced here:

“2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

…

(7) "consumer" means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause,—

(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

…”

4. The definition includes the buyers as well as the user of the goods within its ambit. However the user is required to establish the fact that the buyer has authorised use of the goods.
5. The Complainant herein is stated to be user of the vehicle bearing registration number MH09DF2021. The Complainant is not the registered owner of the said vehicle. It has been stated that one Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai (not a party) is the actual registered owner of the said vehicle who has permitted the Complainant to use the said vehicle. There is no document on record to suggest that Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The Complainant has not placed on record the registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle in question. On our enquiry, the Complainant has filed photo copy of the Authority Letter along with the copy of the Aadhaar of Shri Desai.
6. The Authority Letter submitted by the Complainant herein is dated 25.01.2024, which is the date subsequent to filing of this complaint. However the said letter indicates that the said Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai has authorised the Complainant herein and her family members for personal use since 16.07.2020. As there was no registration certificate on record to suggest that Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai is actual owner of the vehicle. We checked the details of the ownership from the m-parivahan application maintained by Government of India. The virtual RC downloaded from the m-parivahan application indicates that the registered owner of the vehicle in question (MH09DF2021) is one Shri Amol Sonavale S/o Shri Dnyanu. Copy of the virtual RC downloaded from m-parivahan application is kept in the records of this complaint.
7. It is not clear that whether Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai was ever owner of the said vehicle or not. It might be a possibility that the vehicle was earlier owned by Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai, but now the same has been registered in the name of new owner namely Shri Amol Sonavale. The date on which the vehicle was transferred possibly transferred to Shri Amol Sonavale is also not clear.
8. However the details so verified by this Commission clearly indicate that the ownership of the vehicle in question is not with Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai but with Shri Amol Sonavale. In such a situation, Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai could not have permitted the Complainant herein to use and ply the vehicle in question. Once the ownership of the vehicle is not established, the authority letter issued in favour of the Complainant herein also becomes invalid.
9. As the ownership of the vehicle is not established in the name of the person who has authorised the Complainant herein to use the vehicle in question, the Complainant herein cannot be considered as a consumer within the meaning of section 2(7) of the CPA, 2019. Accordingly, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
10. Before concluding, we would also like to record that the Complainant herein has not filed any document to suggest that Shri Vijaysinh Vithalrao Desai is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. She has also not filed any document, which pre-dates filing of this complaint, to indicate that the said alleged owner has granted the permission to use the said vehicle. Further except for the allegations of missing parts and scratches on the chassis of the car, there is no pleading to indicate that what the problems in the vehicle are. In the entire complaint, the Complainant has alleged that even after repeated service, the problem in the vehicle persisted, but has not where explained that what these problems are. The Complainant has also not filed any documents/ photographs indicating the problems and to substantiate the allegations made the complaint. Even the copy of the job cards indicating the problem has also not been annexed. The allegations made in the complaint are not only vague, but also not substantiated or supported by any document/ photograph/ record. The Complainant, in support of her allegation, has annexed the legal notice, which has been duly replied by the OP-2. There is not pleading even to explain that how the reply to legal notice is wrong/ unacceptable to the Complainant. In our opinion, the Complainant has filed this complaint with ulterior motive. This calls for dismissal of the complaint with costs. However, considering the noble profession, the Complainant is carrying; we are refraining from passing any adverse order on this aspect against the Complainant and warn the Complainant herein from filing frivolous and malicious complaint in future.
11. With above observations, on the ground of misjoinder of party and also on the ground that the Complainant herein is not a consumer as defined under section 2(7) of the CPA 2019, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
12. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member