CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.357/2011
DR. NITIN JHA,
J. CONSULTANT SURGEON,
DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY, BATRA HOSPITAL,
TUGHLAKABAD INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEW DELHI,
ALSO AT R/O-413-B,
PANCHACHULI APARTMENT, SECTOR-61,
NOIDA 201301(U.P.) …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- RAMA MOTORS,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
A-87, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEW DELHI- 110020. ....RESPONDENT NO.1
- TATA MOTORS
THROUGH ITS CHAIR PERSON
REGD. OFFICE
BOMBAY HOUSE, 24,
HOMI MODY STREET, FORT,
MUMBAI – 400001. ....RESPONDENT NO.2
- STERLING AUTOMOBILE
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
D-4, SECTOR- 8,
DISTRICT – GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR,
NOIDA – 201301. ....RESPONDENT NO.3
Date of Institution-02/09/2011
Date of Order-09/02/2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
The complaint pertains to defect in vehicle manufactured by OP through its dealers.
The brief facts of the complaint is that complainant purchased a car, Indica Vista Aura ABS (Saffire)-Regn DL 13C 3109, on 28.08.2010 for Rs. 3,96,021/-. It is alleged that after one month of purchase the complainant faced problems in remote control keys for central locking. It was duly replaced at the time of first servicing. During second free servicing complainant was charged Rs. 1762/- for engine oil change, filter change etc. This amount was returned when complainant confronted the service centre.
On 6.5.2011 the vehicle stopped suddenly near Rockland Hospital. It was taken to OP1 for repairs which is an authorized service centre of OP2, the manufacturer. The complainant received the said car on 7.5.2011 at 6:30PM. The car stopped again after having driven just for 2 to 3 kms. The car was taken back to OP1 by a towing vehicle. On 9.5.2011, OP1 informed the complainant that the problem could not be solved and car should be taken to another service centre. The vehicle was taken to Metro Automobile and some repairs for brake System was undertaken. Finally, the car was handed over to the complainant after 20 days.
The complainant alleged that the condition of the car is unsatisfactory and problems regarding power window, breaks, low average are continuing. A legal notice dated 26.5.2011 was served on the OP. A vague reply dated 17.6.2011 was received from OP1. Complainant prays for replacement of faulty car with benefits of extended warranty, a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-.
OP2 in its reply has stated vehicles manufactured by OP passed through stringent quality checks before commercial production. Furthermore, the relationship between OP2 and the dealer is on principal to principal basis. It is supported by excellent dealership/ authorized service centre having excellent workshop for after sale services of the vehicle.
OP2 states that the vehicle in question has covered 31740 kms. on 2.6.2012 proving the vehicle to be roadworthy and defect free. OP2 states that the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP3 with accidental repairs. It is pointed out that the vehicle was got repaired from M/s Metro automobile and M/s Top Gear Automobiles on 21.12.2010. They were deliberately not made a party to the complaint. On 7.5.2011, the vehicle had covered 13,186 Kms. and brake pads were replaced at that time. OP2 submits that the vehicle was taken to the workshop of M/s Autolink on 18.5.2011 with the problem of brake grabbing/jam. The said dealer installed a brake booster/tandem master cylinder and topped up the brake oil. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 25.5.2011.
OP2 imputes that the complainant was negligent and careless in handling the vehicle. Consequently, the manufacture is to be discharged from the liability under the warranty. OP prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
OP1 and OP3 are Ex-parte.
The complainant in his rejoinder to OP2 has reiterated the contention made in the complaint. Complainant has denied the vehicle has covered 31740 kms. on 2.6.2012. The complainant admits that there was small dent on front bumper and side piece as he tried to avoid a car overtaking him from the wrong side. The car was kept with OP3 for 4 days for the repair of that dent. The problem regarding brakes occurred after 4-5 months.
The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and filed the following documents:-
- Copy of Retail Invoice dated 28.8.2010 is exhibited as EX.C/1.
- Copy of papers for repairs of the car is are exhibited as Ex C/2 Colly.
- Copy of legal notice dated 26.5.2011 and vague reply dated 17.6.2011 are exhibited as Ex. C/3 and C/4.
OP2 has also filed evidence by way of affidavit of Bipin Das Manager (Legal).
OP2 has filed an application on 17.11.2022 for bringing on record additional facts. The said application stated that the vehicle No. DL13C3109 is shown on Vahaan Portal of Delhi in the name of Mr. Dinesh Kumar being its registered owner. OP2 alleges that the vehicle has been sold by complainant to Mr. Dinesh Kumar. OP2 has filed the status of the vehicle on the official site of Vahaan Portal. Arguments were heard on the application as well as the complaint. The complainant did not refute the allegation made in the complaint.
In the judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 2343 OF 2019 Priya Ajit Singh Vs Mahindra & Mahindra- Automotive Division and 3 Ors, the National Commission has elaborately discussed the issue involved in the matter. The National Commission while referring to series of its previous judgments has also referred to the judgment passed by it in Tata Motors Ltd. VsHazoorMahrajBala Das Rajji Chela Baba DewaSinghi IV (2013) CPJ 444 (NC), wherein it is held that once the vehicle was sold during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant does not remain a Consumer for the purpose of the Act.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed in Mr. Rajiv Gulati Vs Authorised Signatory, M/S Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. &Ors. (FA No.466/2008 decided on 23.04.2013), whereby the National Commission held that as the vehicle has been sold by the complainant during the pendency of the appeal, the complainant ceased to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Tata Motors Ltd VsShri Manoj Wadi & Surya Auto Pvt. Ltd. RP No. 2321 of 2008 decided on 08.05.2019, has held that when the vehicle had been sold, it was not possible to establish by cogent evidence that it suffered from any manufacturing defect.
Perusal of Vehicle Registration shows that owner’s name of the vehicle with Registration number DL13C109 is Dinesh Kumar. This Vehicle Registration status has not been denied by complainant in oral arguments. It appear that complainant has parted with possession of the vehicle during the pendency of the complaint without informing the Commission. In the wake of aforementioned judgments by Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant ceases be a consumers under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
