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.888/09
Rajiv Kohli
89, Jorbagh
New Delhi. …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
Rohan Motors Ltd.
A-15, Mohan Co-Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
Maruti Udyog Ltd.
25 Kasturba Gandhi Marg
New Delhi-110001
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
(Through its Managing Director)
Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110044. …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-22.12.2009
Date of Order-31.05.2024
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
- The complaint pertains to defect in a vehicle manufactured and sold by OPs.
- Facts as stated in complaint are: The complainant purchased a deluxe car “Grand Vitara” Silky Silver, having Engine No.503886 for Rs.14,85,43/- on 06.11.2008. It is alleged that car started giving following problems :
- The clutch makes a metallic clicking sound on being depressed
- The steering pulls to the left
- Car takes a jerk when the accelerator is suddenly left
- Plastic panel above clutch is loose
- Electronic system for 4L lock need to be checked as it Hung when trying to operate.
- The vehicle was taken to workshop and the clutch plate was changed, but the metallic sound continued. Several correspondences were exchanged between the parties.
- The complainant alleges that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects and prays for refund of the price of the vehicle or replacement of the vehicle with a new one and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.
- Notice was issued to OP-1, but none appeared. OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.02.2017.
- OP-2 submits that the vehicle has travelled for 29,188 kilometres as on 22.08.2010. OP-2 denies any manufacturing defects as the vehicle has undergone stringent test and pre-delivery inspection.
- Both the parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit.
- The complainant counsel Mr. Manish Kumar Choudhary have stated that the vehicle in dispute has been sold in year 2023. This statement has been recorded in order dated 12.01.2024 and 05.07.2024.
- Hon’ble National Commission in Priya Ajit Singh vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive Division & 3 Ors. first appeal No.2343 of 2019 decided on 02.03.2020 has observed:
“Par 8(3) Reliance is also placed on judgement, Mr. Rajiv Gulati Vs. Authorised Signatory, M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors., (FA/466/2008 decided on 23.04.2013), whereby this Commission held that as the vehicle has been sold by the complainant during the pendency of appeal, the complainant ceased to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint was liable to be dismissed.
9. This Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Shri Manoj Gadi and Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., RP No.2321 of 2008 decided on 08.05.2014 held as follows: - The respondent should not have sold the said vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings before the National Commission. As observed above, it is not possible to have the order of the State Commission executed because the vehicle no longer remains with the petitioner. The factum of any manufacturing defect being there or not, can also not be ascertained by any expert evidence at this stage. In the case of Rajiv Gulati versus M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. & Ors.(supra), it has been clearly stated that when the vehicle had been sold, it was not possible to establish by cogent evidence that it suffered from any manufacturing defect. In this very case, it has been observed that the depreciated value of the vehicle is presumed to be less than the sale-consideration. This may not be the position in the present case but still, the complainant should have sought the permission of the court before selling the vehicle. Under these circumstances, when the order of the State Commission cannot be implemented due to the sale of the vehicle by the Complainant, this Appeal is allowed and we order accordingly. The consumer complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.”
- In the present matter, the complainant has sold/transferred the vehicle during pendency of proceedings before this Commission while alleging manufacturing defects such as problems with clutch, car alignment during turning, etc. In the light of discussion above, the complainant ceases to be a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no Orders as to costs.
