CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.160/2012
MR. B. L. CHORARIA,
C/O SINGHI & CO.
HAVING OFFICE AT SINGHI & CO 402-403
PRAGATI HOUSE, 47-48, NEHRU PLACE,
DELHI-110019
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- TATA MOTORS LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT
JEEVAN TARA BUILDING,
5, SANSAD MARG,
NEW DLEHI-110001
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:06.02.2019
O R D E R
A. S Yadav - President
This complaint is filed by Sh. B.L Choraria, partner of Singhi and Company, stating that a car was purchased from OP-2, authorised dealer of OP-1, OP-1 is manufacturer of the Car. There was manufacturing defect in the car from the very beginning. The car was taken to the authorised workshop number of times but every time the vehicle got heat up, but nothing was done in this regard, Complainant has sought refund of the amount of the car as well as Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation.
OP-1 in his reply denied any manufacturing defect in the car and also took the plea that Complainant is not a consumer. The car in question is purchased by a partnership firm. During the pendency of the case OP submitted that car has been sold by the Complainant. Hence, Complainant ceases to be the consumer.
Since the complainant has sold the car during pendency of the case, he ceases to be owner and ceases to be consumer. It is useful to refer to case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Hazoor Maharaj Baba & Anr.– Revision Petition No.2562/2012 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 25.09.2013 where it was held that complainant ceases to be owner as he has sold the vehicle.
Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in Complaint Case No.81/2004 titled A.E. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mercedes Benz India Ltd. and Anr. (decided on 11.12.2015). Reliance is also placed on the case of Audhut Parab Vs Dempo Marketing Co. Ltd. – III(2016) CPJ 577(NC).
Complaint is dismissed.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
