Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1076/2013

CELESTAIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SKODA AUTO. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 1076/2013 

 

	CELESTIAL KNITS AND FABS PVT. LTD. B-60, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI - 110065	….Complainant
Versus
1	SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD. A-1/1, MIDC FIVE STAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, SHENDRA, AURANGABAD-431201	……OP1
2	SRI AUTOMOBILES 77 PATPARGANJ INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI – 110092	……OP2
3	JAI AUTO A-38-39, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI.	……OP3

 

 

Date of Institution: 13.12.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 16.12.2022

Judgment Passed on: 27.01.2023

               

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off application filed by OP1 for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

2. Prior to coming to the contents of the application, brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that complainant who is a Private Ltd. Co. purchased the car from OP2 which is being manufactured by OP1 on 07.04.2010 and which had certain issues w.r.t. A.C. installed in the car. 

 

3. It is stated that the Air Conditioner of the said car was not working properly and first complaint was raised on 17.03.2018 and therefore around 16 times the vehicle had gone to the office /workshop of OP3 who is the authorized service centre of OP2 and complainant has spent almost an amount of Rs.1,24,357/- on the repair of AC which still has not been properly repaired and as such complainant has filed the present complaint against OP thereby seeking the direction that OP be directed:

 

• To replace the vehicle immediately or refund the entire price of the vehicle along with the amount paid on the repair and service of the AC system of the vehicle,
• OP to pay a sum of Rs.300000/- as compensation for loss of satisfaction and enjoyment and for the physical and mental harassment, trauma and inconvenience suffered by the complainant,
• An order directing the opposite party to pay the cost of the proceedings to the complainant,
• Any other and further such order(s) as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the complainant and against the OP. 

 

4. OP1 has filed its reply taking preliminary objection that no statement allocation contention has been ever made to OP1 and as such there is no ground to file any complaint against OP1 and the complainant has never opted for any mechanical inspection of the subject vehicle and if the complainant intends to get the vehicle mechanically inspected, OP1 is ready for an independent mechanical inspection for the vehicle but since no complaint has ever been addressed to the OP1.  The complaint is not maintainable at least for OP1.  Further, it is stated that complaint is not a consumer and the complainant being an artificial person i.e. the company, cannot be said to have suffered any mental pain or agony as alleged. 

 

5. Various other objections have also been taken by the OP1 and ultimately it is prayed that complaint be dismissed. 

 

6. OP2 has also filed detailed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is totally misconceived and it is submitted that OP2 is only the dealer who is selling the cars manufactured by OP1 and as his relation with OP1 is from principal to principal basis.  Therefore, no liability  can be affixed on OP2. 

 

7. It is further argued that complaint is also barred by time, as the complainant purchased car in 2010 claiming faulty state of it’s A.C. w.e.f. beginning but the complaint case has been filed in 2014  and therefore, the same is barred by time.  It is further stated that the complainant is claiming compensation of Rs.300000/- and it being an artificial person, such compensation is not permissible in law.  It is further states that the subject vehicle has never been brought to OP2 nor the complainant ever visited the OP2 and as such claim of the complainant against OP2  is not maintainable. 

 

8. The Rejoinder was filed by the Complainant and even complainant as well as OP1 and OP2 filed evidence and matter reached at the stage of final arguments on 10.01.2017.  However, for one reason or the other, arguments could not be heard and OP1 has now filed an application on 24.09.2018 that complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground that complainant has sold the vehicle and has no more remained a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. 

 

9. The present application under disposal was filed and it is inter alia stated in the application that complainant has sold off the vehicle as per the current registration details of the subject vehicle which are available at the official site of the VK VAHAN, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and registered in the name of the one Sh. Satender Kumar and it has come to the knowledge of the opposite party/ applicant that the complainant has sold off the vehicle which is the subject  matter in controversy before the Ld. Forum. The complaint, therefore, as per opposite party/ applicant has become infructous & ceased to be maintainable.  It is further stated that this proposition has been derived from a pronouncement of Honb'le National Commission Judgment in "TATA MOTORS LTD VS HAZOOR MAHARAJ BABA & ANOTHER", REVESION PETITION NO. 2562 OF 2012 DECIDED ON 25TH SEPTEMBER 2013.   

 

10. The complainant has not filed any reply to this application, the Commission has perused the record and heard the arguments.  Law is well settled. 

 

11. In Tata Motor Ltd. Vs Hazoor Maharaj and Another; 2013 SCC Online NCDRC 883; (2013) NCDRC 864; (2013) 4 CPJ 444 (NC): (2013) 4 CPR 272 (NC) which inter alia states that:

 

“In the light of above observations, we find that as complainant did not remain consumer after sale of vehicle and he has sold the vehicle without permission of the District Forum and has suppressed this fact and has not approached the courts with clean hands, complaint is liable to be dismissed and revision petition is to be allowed.” 

12. Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that in view of the judgment as relied upon by the OP1, the complainant at present in the changed facts and circumstances is no more a consumer and as such the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  The application is allowed and case of the complainant is dismissed.      

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room 

Announced on 27.01.2023