Case No. : CC/196/2017
Date : 19.10.2023, At 4.00 p.m.
Present:- Shri Manoj Tomar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Diwakar proxy for Shri Vipin Singhania, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.
By this order the Commission would disposed of the application of the OP1 and OP2 for dismissal of the complainant on the ground that the complaint deny the pendency of the complainant here sold the insured vehicle and is not more an existing customer.
Before coming to the facts of this application it is necessary to mention the facts of the complaint which inter-alia are that the complainant purchased one car from the OP having warrantee of 2 years but the vehicle so delivered was defective one and since the defect was not cured despite various requests, the complainant filed the complaint before the Consumer Commission seeking prayer that the defective vehicle be replaced with a new one and pay compensation.
The OPs were contesting the matter by filing the WS in which they have controverted the fact of the complaint and both the parties have file the respective evidence and matter went up to the stages of final arguments. Meanwhile matter was fixed for settlement but now the OP1 and OP2 have filed the present application.
Now coming to the facts of the present application it is inter-alia stated that the present complaint now has become is fructuous as the complainant by now has sold-off the vehicle involved in the present dispute and therefore has no more remained a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and therefore terms of the judgment in TATA Motors Ltd. Vs. Hazur Maharaj Baba and Anr. Revision Petition No.2562/2012 the complaint case of the complainant be dismissed.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant is present and he admits that car by now has been sold. The Commission is peruse the records.
The OP has also relied upon the judgment title Ramesh Vs. M/s. Sakoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors. Ist appeal No. 390/2014, decided by NCDRC, New Delhi and para 8 of the same read as under:
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 further argued that the complainant has already sold the vehicle in the year 2017 during the pendency of this appeal and therefore, the appellant/complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as the vehicle has been sold without notice of this Commission and without any permission to sell. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel referred to following judgments:-
- Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singh Ji (Radha Swami), 2013 SCC on line NCDRC 883. It has been held that:
“15. In the light of the above obwervations, 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 court with clean hands, complaint is laible to be dismissed and revision petition is to be allowed.”
- M/s. Honda Cars India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh Manda, 2013 SCC online NCDRC 934, it has been held that:
“6. We have held in R.P. No.2562 of 2012 Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singh Ji (Radha Swami) & Anr. decided on 25.09.2013 that once vehicle is sold during pendency of the complaint, complainant does not remain consumer for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act. In that judgment, we have placed reliance on I (2008) CPJ 249 (NC) Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. Major Amrit Lal Saini and judgement dated 23.04.2013 passed by this Commission Appeal No. 466 of 2008 Mr. Rajiv Gulati Vs. Authorised Signatory M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors. In this case, as vehicle has been sold by complainant during pendency of appeal which was filed in the year 2007 and decided in the year 2012, complainant ceases to be a consumer under C.P. Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Had Respondent No.1 brought this fact to the notice of State Commission learned State Commission would not have directed petitioner to replaced the steering wheel and gear box assembly and other connected parts because Respondent No.1 was not possessing vehicle at the time of passing the judgement.
Keeping in view of the Legal Proposition the Commission is of the opinion that the application of OP1 and OP2 is self exploratory and accordingly the application of OP1 and OP2 is allowed and the complaint case of the complainant is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
