Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/232

KAMAL KR. ANAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Arguments : 11.03.2016

Decision : 17.03.2016

 

Complaint No. 232/11

 

In the matter of:

Mr. Kamal Kumar Anand,

A-103, Defence Colony,

New Delhi-110024.  …..........Complainant

 

 

Versus

Toyota Kirloskar Motors Ltd.,

10.  

Vithal Mallya Road,

•  
•  

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased Toyota Fortuner car from Uttam Toyota, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi in September, 2010. On 25^th may, 2011 his driver took vehicle to Punjab to pick up his family from Khanna but met with an accident of high magnitude which completely damaged the vehicle. After accident, he was stressed to know that driver was following all safety measure at such a speed after such an impact but air bags did not deploy. The agency identified the total damage. The insurance company was ready to pay its part amount for the repair. The event indicated that vehicle was defective and was not fit to be driven as it had malfunctioning speed system.  Recently, Toyota recalled many Fortuners for repairs for their faulty breaking system.  After that he thought that Toyota must have fixed all its flaws. But he was mistaken to have judged in that way. He has prayed for refund of cost of car i.e. Rs.20 lacs, Rs.5 lacs towards physical strain  and mental agony, Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation.

 

2. The OP filed reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, complainant has failed to array servicing dealer as a party.  The complaint is hypothetical, it seeks to fictionalise loss and conceive events which has not occurred, driver came out wholly unhurt, deployment of airbags would have seldom caused any difference, complainant stands adequately indemnified from insurer. The vehicle has in all likelihood been sold unrepaired. The claim with the insurer was settled on cash loss basis and Rs.4.5 lac was pocketed by complainant. On merits, the OP denied the incident.  The incident was under ride  collision, airbags are not meant to trigger and deploy in case of underride collision. According to OP what can be concluded is that vehicle collided with truck, truck was stationery, the break stood applied and vehicle decelerated before sustaining the hit. Complainant lead its evidence by way of affidavit. OP lead its evidence by way of affidavit.

 

3. Complainant has filed written arguments. OP also filed written arguments.

 

4. Alongwith written arguments, OP has filed copy of registration certificate of the vehicle in question. The same stand in the name of Saurabh Sukhija. The counsel for OP stressed that he has already taken objection in reply that vehicle has been sold. The complainant admitted the said fact.

 

5. Now, the question which boils down is what is the effect of sale of vehicle during the pendency of the case. This came up for consideration before National Commission in Revision No.2562/12 titled as Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji (Radha Swami) decided on 25.09.2013.  After relying on decision of National Commission in Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. Major Amrit Lal Saini I (2008) CPJ 249 and Appeal No.466/08 titled as Rajiv Gulati Vs. Authorised Signatory M/s. Tata Engineering & locomotive Co. Ltd. decided on 23.04.2013, it was held that after sale, the complainant does not remain a consumer. Similar view has been taken by National Commission in Revision Petition No.2622/12 titled Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh Madan decided on 11.10.2013.

 

6. Decision in Revision Petition No.158/15 titled as General Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A. Jaya Krishnan decided on 18.09.2015 is also an authority for the same preposition.

 

7. Counsel for complainant submitted that complainant sold the vehicle under intimation to this Commission. We fail to appreciate as to what he wants to make out.  It was not with the permission of this Commission. Even permission cannot change the law.  The sale has the same effect and consequences.

 

8. For the foregoing reasons, complaint is dismissed as being no more maintainable in view of sale during pendency of the case.

 

9. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

10. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

(S. C. Jain)Member

 

 

245.