Kerala

Palakkad

CC/09/170

U.P.Sasikumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swaraj Mazda - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Civil Station, Palakkad, Kerala Pin:678001 Tel : 0491-2505782
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/170

U.P.Sasikumar
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Swaraj Mazda
Maxim M otors (A Division of Maxim Traders Pvt Ltd)
Maxim Motors
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K 2. Smt.Preetha.G.Nair 3. Smt.Seena.H

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 31st day of December, 2009


 

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.170/2009

U.P.Sasikumar,

S/o.Late Rajagopalan,

Sreyas,

Maruthur Post, Pattambi,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.T.V.Pradeesh)


 

Vs


 

1.Swaraj Mazda,

Swaraj Mazda,

Chandigarh

Rep by Chief Marketing Manager

 

2. Maxim Motors

(A Division of Maxim Traders Pvt. Ltd.),

34/251, N.H.47 Bye Pass,

Edappally, Cochin 642024

Rep by its Marketing Manager


 

3. Maxim Motors,

Koppam, Pattambi,

Palakkad.

Rep by its Marketing Manager - Opposite parties


 

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President


 

Complaint coming up for hearing on admission. The forum deliver the following.


 

The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a bus from the opposite party. Within months from the date of purchase itself vehicle started showing the defects. It was repaired many a times but no use. At last the complainant sold the vehicle. Now the complainant is claiming compensation from the opposite party for the defect in the vehicle purchased.


 

Heard the complainant.

It is admitted by the complainant himself that at the time of filing the present complaint, the complainant has already part with the vehicle by selling it to another person. Hence now the complainant cannot be said to have any interest in the vehicle sold. Moreover, there exist no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party. Further by selling the vehicle complainant has received consideration. Now if at all any order is passed in favour of the complainant that will be double enrichment to the complainant.


 

In view of the above circumstance, we are of the view that the complainant cannot be treated as consumer. Hence without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint.


 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of December, 2009


 

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member




......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H