Delhi

StateCommission

CC/13/450

PRIYA AJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA AUTOMOBILES & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision:18.09.2019

 

 

Complaint Case No.450/2013

 

Mrs. Priya  Ajit Singh,

W/o Shri Ajit Singh Bawa,

R/o E-14/8, Vasant Vihar,

New Delhi -110057.                                                      ….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Mahindra & Mahindra -Automotive Division

Automotive Sector, Mahindra Towers – 3^rd Floor,

Akruli Road, Kandivali (East),

Mumbai – 400 101.

 

2. Mahindra Vehicle Manufacturers,

A-1, Phase-VI, Chakan Industrial Area,

Village Nighoje, Taluka Khed District

Pune – 410 501.

 

3. Bhasin Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.A-13, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Sarita Vihar, New Delhi -110076.

 

4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,

ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veera Savarkar Marg,

Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi,

Mumbai – 400 025. 

… Opposite Parties.

CORAM

Salma Noor, Presiding Member

 

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

  

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Presiding Member

 

1. A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) is filed by the complainant wherein it is alleged that on 29.04.2013, complainant purchased a Mahindra XUV 500 bearing registration No.DL 12CA 2418 from OP No.1. It is alleged that on 06.01.2013 at about 8.30 AM, the vehicle met with an accident while the complainant’s son Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa was travelling with driver Jaichand to Agra. It is stated that on the Yamuna Expressway a truck bearing registration No.DL 1GC 0210 crashed into the rear side of the vehicle. It is stated that at the time of accident driver Jaichand was driving the vehicle. It is stated that none of the airbags deployed at the time of accident, causing exposure of risk to all the passengers. It is stated that son of the complainant reported the accident to the nearest police station at Sadabad, Janpad Mahamaya Nagar, UP and gave a written complaint narrating the abovementioned accident. It is stated that driver of the truck Mr. Budh Prakash was apprehended by the local police. It is stated that said driver gave a written statement to the police wherein he admitted his fault in causing the accident and destroying the vehicle in question from the rear side. It is stated that thereafter complainant’s son informed the Mahindra emergency services on phone, who sent a crane and picked the damaged vehicle and delivered it to Bhasin Motors, A-13, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi on 07.01.2013. It is stated that vehicle has an insurance bearing cover note No.PO9871583 dated 08.05.2012 issued by ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance.  It is stated that authorized representative of OP No.4, namely, Mr. Bhupendra Rawat, visited the complainant’s house to investigate the accident case/claim of the vehicle that took place on 06.01.2013. He took various documents from the complainant to process the claim. However, complainant received no response from OP No.1 to 4 despite making various phone calls.
2. It is stated that complainant sent a letter dated 01.03.2013 to OP No.3 seeking the progress on the repair job of the vehicle. It is stated that complainant also sent a letter dated 01.03.2013 to OP No.4 seeking approval for the repair job of the vehicle. It is stated that complainant also sent a letter dated 19.03.2013 to OP No.2 seeking the progress on the repair job of the vehicle and also complaining the unprofessional and callous attitude of OP No.3 owing the delay in delivery of vehicle. However, complainant did not receive any response from OPs. It is stated that the complainant then wrote an email dated 30.03.2013 to OP No.2 and 3 expressing displeasure and inconvenience.  It is stated that complainant again sent an email dated 27.06.2013 to OP No.2 and 3 again expressing anguish and frustration as the vehicle has not been repaired for over 6½ months. It is stated that OP No.3 responded vide email dated 27.06.2013 apologizing for the long delay in repairing the vehicle and promised to deliver the vehicle by 03.07.2013. It is stated that OP No.3 then wrote an email dated 02.07.2013 to complainant seeking few documents for processing the claim of complainant. The complainant provided the required documents vide email dated 02.07.2013. It is stated that OP No.3 sent an email dated 06.07.2013 to complainant that the vehicle has been repaired and now they are waiting for a clearance from OP No.4 to deliver the vehicle. It is stated that complainant visited the workshop of OP No.3 on 12.07.2013 to take the delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was in terrible condition and not fit for delivery at all. It is stated that there were scratches all over the vehicle and none of the fittings had been done appropriately. Complainant immediately wrote an email dated 12.07.2013 to OP No.2 and 3 mentioning all the defects that were visible on visual inspection of the vehicle. It is stated complainant wrote another email dated 21.07.2013 to OP No.2 and 3 as an executive of OP No.3 had informed that gear box of the vehicle was defective and require further repairs. It is stated that OP No.3 responded vide email dated 21.07.2013 indicating that they had provided best possible service and delay was not caused owing to their deficient service and suggested that delay was in giving approval by OP No.4 for the defect in the gear box that had just come to the attention of OP No.3 despite it being in the workshop of OP No.3. It is stated that complainant has been without vehicle since 06.01.2013.  It is stated that respondent No.2 and 3 are incapable of repairing the vehicle and restoring it to its original condition and therefore are liable to replace the vehicle. It is stated that complainant has been spending money on taxis ever since the accident and OP No.1,2 and 3 did not ever extend the courtesy to offer an alternative mode of transport. It is stated that complainant travels 50 kilometers every day for work and other purposes. It is stated that complainant has been without a vehicle since 06.01.2013 i.e. almost 212 days.
3. It is alleged that there is a deficiency in service on the part of all the OPs. The complainant has prayed for direction to OP No.1, 2 and 3 to replace the vehicle or in the alternate to repair the vehicle and restore it to its original condition and deliver it to complainant and a direction to OP No.4 to make all payments for such repairs made. Complainant has also prayed for direction to OPs to pay damage of Rs.15,15,000/- i.e. the market price of the vehicle alongwith interest @18% PA from 06.01.2013 and to pay Rs.2,43,800/- for the sum spent by the complainant on taxis till date. Further prayer is made for payment of punitive damages for causing mental damage, trauma and anguish to the complainant of a sum equivalent to Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. During the pendency of the complaint, OP No.3 i.e. M/s. Bhasin Motors had moved an application seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the vehicle in question has already been sold. It is further alleged that during the pendency of the present complaint, the vehicle in question has been sold by the complainant to one Mr. Syed Sultan Salauddin in May, 2014 who has further sold the vehicle in question to another person, namely, Mr. Mohd Faraz Musarrat Ali. The OP No.3 has placed on record and relied upon a copy of ownership details of the vehicle in question showing the name of present owner the vehicle in question and states that complainant has received a payment of Rs.10,00,000/- towards sale consideration of the vehicle in question.  It is stated that the said fact has been admitted by the complainant in replication to written statement of OP No.3 in page No.6 at Para 16 of the reply to preliminary objection and at para No.1 and 4 of reply to preliminary submission. It is prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground.
5. No reply to the application is required as the complainant has himself admitted for the factum of selling the vehicle in question to Mr. Syed Sultan Salauddin on 22.05.2015.
6. Thus, it is admitted position that the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to Mr. Syed Sultan Salauddin on 22.05.2015 who has further sold the vehicle in question to another person, namely, Mr. Mohd Faraz Musarrat Ali.
7. The complainant has sold the vehicle during the pendency of the complaint. Hence, he ceases to be “consumer” as defined under the Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Tata Motors Ltd. v. Hazoor Mahraj Bala Das Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhi IV (2013) CPJ 444 NC, wherein the National Commission has held that once the vehicle is sold during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant does not remain a consumer for the purpose of the Act. Further in the judgment of M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. v. Jatinder Singh Madan & Anr. passed by National Commission in RP No.2622/2012 on 11.10.2013, wherein the vehicle in question was sold by the complainant therein during the pendency of the appeal. It was held that the complainant ceases to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and the consumer complaint was dismissed on that sole ground.
8. In the present case, ownership of the vehicle stands transferred on 22.05.2015 and the said fact is admitted by the complainant. Though the complainant has admitted this fact in his replication to the written statement of OP No.3, however, it is only the OP No.3 who has brought the said fact to the notice of this Commission by moving the aforesaid application on 07.08.2019.
9. Since, the complainant has sold the vehicle, he is no longer “consumer” as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the present complaint stands dismissed.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge. 

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Salma Noor)

Presiding Member