Delhi

StateCommission

A/08/810

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMTIED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SADHU RAM CHANDEL - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  08.02.2017

Date of Decision : 14.02.2017

Appeal No. 810/2008

(Arising out of the order dated 16.07.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.1041/16 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-New Delhi)

In the matter of:

 

M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited,

Formerly known as

(Maruti Udyog Limited)

11^th Floor, Jeevan Prakash,

25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                       …..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Sadhu Ram Chandel & Others,

S/o Sh. Kashi Chandel,

R/o B-5/227, Sector-7,

Rohini, Delhi-110085

 

2. D.D. Motors,

A-100, Mayapuri,

Industrial Area, Phase-II,

New Delhi-110064.                                                 ….....Respondents

                                                                   

CORAM

 

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Anil Srivastava, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The appeal challenged order dated 16.07.2008 passed by District Forum in CC No.1041/16 vide which the complaint was allowed and appellant was directed to pay Rs.2lacs to the complainant for selling defective car, Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

2. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case because on 03.02.2017 the appellant filed status of registration of car in question downloaded from www.vahan.com. The same recites that Car No. DL-8C-K-3096 was in the name of Deepak Gogia S/o B.D. Gogia.  The respondent took time to confirm the same.  Matter was adjourned to 08.02.2017 but counsel for respondent stated that he could not confirm the same.  In view of the documentary evidence filed by appellant, nothing remains to be confirmed by respondents.

 

3. Law regarding sale of vehicle during pendency is that after the vehicle is sold, complainant does not remain a consumer. In this regard reliance can be placed on following decisions of National Commission :-

1. Ansar Pasha Vs. Tata Motors IV (2011) CPJ 107.
2. Honda Cars Vs. .Jatinder Singh IV (2012) CPJ 258.
3. R.P. No.2562/12 Tata Motors Vs. Huzur Maharaj Babadecided on 25.09.2013.
4. Tata Motors Vs. Manoj Gadi II (2014) CPJ 665.
5. Revision Petition No.158/15, General Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A. Jaya Krishnan decided on 18.09.2015.
6. Revision Petition No.612/16, Audhot Prab Vs. Dampo Marketing decided on 15.03.2016.

 

4. The counsel for respondent wanted to make out that above cases were of disposal of vehicle during the pendency of the complaint whereas in the present case the car has been disposed of during pendency of appeal. We are not able to impress ourselves with the arguments. The appeal is nothing but continuation of complaint.

 

5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

 

6. Copy of the order be  sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

7. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

8. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

                         

 

(Anil Srivastava)

​Member ​