CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.255/18
Athar Alam(Adv.)
S/o Late Syed Khalil Ahmad
R/o A-33, Alig Residency
Flat No.201, Abul Fazal Enclave
Part-2, Jamia Nagar
New Delhi.…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- Youwe Nissan Auto Through its
Owner (Earlier Kaisen Nissan)
Showroom F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-1, New Delhi-110020
- Youwe Nissan Auto Workshop D-12, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-1, New Delhi-110020.…..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-05.12.2018
Date of Order-09.02.2024
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
- The complaint pertains to defect in vehicle sold by OP.
- The complainant purchased a car, Datsun Go+ Car (7 Seater), Registration No. and model No.DL2CAT5117, on 28.1.2015.
- It is alleged that OP advertised, promoted and promised an average of 21 km/litre at the time of purchase. The said car was giving an average of only 10 km/litre. The complainant visited OP workshop four times regarding the aforementioned issues. He was assured by OP staff that these issues will be resolved after service of the vehicle and change of filter. It is further alleged that the staff of service station falsely stated that the car is giving an average of 18 km/litre.
- The complainant had taken a extended warranty after payment of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant alleges poor service, poor quality of tyre and poor cooling of AC.
- The complainant further alleges that three tyres were punctured in 2015 which were repaired time and again but not replaced. The tyres were replaced in March 2018.
- The complainant prays for compensation due to the monitory loss suffered on account of low average, replacement of part, compensation amounting to Rs.4,00,000 and litigation cost amounting to Rs.30,000/-.
- Notice was issued to OPs but none appeared. OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.10.2021.
- Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following document:
- A copy of invoice is annexed as Annexure CW-1.
- A copy of test dive of the DATSUN GO+ is annexed as Annexure CW-2.
- The invoice of servicing of the vehicle from the date of purchase is annexed Annexure CW-3.
- The new tyre purchased in 2018 reflected in statement of account is annexed as Annexure CW-4.
- A copy of Tax invoice is annexed as Annexure CW-5.
- A feedback form provided to the deponent by OP-2 was not filled due to bad performance is annexed with main Petition as Annexure CW-6.
- A legal notice to the Kaizen Nissan is annexed with main Petition as Annexure CW-7.
- The complainant has stated on 12.01.2024 in the Commission that he has sold the vehicle on 06.09.2023.
- This Commission has considered the pleadings and documents on record.
- Hon’ble National Commission in Priya Ajit Singh Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra AutomativeDivision & 3 Ors. First appeal No.2343 of 2019 decided on 02.03.2020 has observed:
“Par 8(3)Reliance is also placed on judgement, Mr. Rajiv Gulati Vs. Authorised Signatory, M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors. , (FA/466/2008 decided on 23.04.2013), whereby this Commission held that as the vehicle has been sold by the complainant during the pendency of appeal, the complainant ceased to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint was liable to be dismissed.
9. This Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Shri Manoj Gadi and Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., RP No.2321 of 2008 decided on 08.05.2014 held as follows: - The respondent should not have sold the said vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings before the National Commission. As observed above, it is not possible to have the order of the State Commission executed because the vehicle no longer remains with the petitioner. The factum of any manufacturing defect being there or not, can also not be ascertained by any expert evidence at this stage. In the case of Rajiv Gulati versus M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. & Ors.(supra), it has been clearly stated that when the vehicle had been sold, it was not possible to establish by cogent evidence that it suffered from any manufacturing defect. In this very case, it has been observed that the depreciated value of the vehicle is presumed to be less than the sale-consideration. This may not be the position in the present case but still, the complainant should have sought the permission of the court before selling the vehicle. Under these circumstances, when the order of the State Commission cannot be implemented due to the sale of the vehicle by the Complainant, this Appeal is allowed and we order accordingly. The consumer complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.”
- In the present matter, the complainant has sold/transferred the vehicle during pendency of proceedings before this Commission while alleging manufacturing defects such as low average, poor quality of tyres etc. In the light of discussion above, the complainant ceases to be a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no Orders as to costs.
