State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., vs Shri Laxman Koli, on 28 March, 2014
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI GOA FA No. 74/13 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai 400 039. ..Appellant V/s. 1.Shri Laxman Koli, S/o Shri Mukadam Koli, S-121/B, Hindustan Builders, Bhattant, Sonar Bhat, Reis Magos, Bardez, Goa. 2.M/S. P.G. Virginkar & Co., Costa Pereira Building, Municipal Square, P.O. Box No.38, Margao, Salcete, Goa ....Respondents FA No. 30/14 M/S. P.G. Virginkar & Co., Costa Pereira Building, Municipal Square, P.O. Box No.38, Margao, Salcete, Goa ..Appellant Vs. 1. Shri Laxman Koli, S/o Shri Mukadam Koli, S-121/B, Hindustan Builders, Bhattant, Sonar Bhat, Reis Magos, Bardez, Goa 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai 400 039 .......Respondents Appellant/ OP No.2 is represented by Adv. Shri V.Mauzekar Appellant/ OP No.1 is represented by Adv. G. B. Kamat Respondent No.1 / Complainant is exparte. Coram: Shri. Justice N.A. Britto, President Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member Dated: 28/03/2014 ORDER
[Per Justice Shri. N. A. Britto, President] These appeals have been filed by the OPs in C.C. No.103/2007, and, they are directed against order dated 22/08/2013 of the North Goa District Forum at Porvorim, and, can be conveniently disposed off by this common order.
2. Respondent No.1/ Complainant was duly served by publication in both the appeals but chose to remain absent.
3. Respondent No.1/Complainant had purchased a Mahindra Champion 3W BS-II, a three wheeler, on 1/02/2007 for a sum of Rs.1,91,045/- from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, and, had registered the same under no. GA 03 T 6777.
4. The vehicle was serviced for the first time on 3/03/2007 at 1577 kms. That was the first free servicing. Claiming that the said vehicle broke down on 2/05/07, 16/5/07, 9/06/07, 12/06/07, 22/06/07 and 21/08/07, the Complainant filed the complaint on 17/10/07 seeking replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price paid, besides compensation and loss of income.
5. The complaint came to be allowed on 22/08/2013 by virtue of which the OPs have been directed to refund to the Complainant the purchase price of Rs.1,91,045/- with interest @ 9% from 17/10/07 on condition that the Complainant returns the defective vehicle to OP No.1 together with registration certificate and all relevant papers duly signed to transfer the ownership to themselves. It is also stipulated in the impugned order, that in case the Complainant is not in possession of the vehicle and is unable to return it, Complainant would be refunded a sum of Rs.1,62,000/-.
6. At the time of hearing of these appeals, Shri G. B. Kamat, the lr. advocate of Appellant/ OP No.2 has placed on record certificates issued by the Asst. Director of Transport which show that the Complainant had sold the vehicle in question to one Yusuf Shaikh on 30/05/11 and the said Yusuf Shaikh had sold it on 21/02/13 to one Jagdish H. Talwar. Shri Kamat has also placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh Madan, 2013, (4) CPR 543 and has submitted that upon the sale of the said vehicle or on about 30/05/11 to the said Yusuf Shaikh, the Complainant had ceased to be a consumer and as such the complaint was not maintainable.
7. We are inclined to accept the submission made. Admittedly, the Lr. District Forum took a very long time to dispose off the complaint which was filed on 17/10/07. It has taken almost six years. It is quite probable that the Complainant after the sale of the vehicle in question has moved away from his residence and for that reason had to be served by publication.
8. The National Commission in the case of M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. (Supra) 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 Consumer Protection Act. That appears to have been the consistent view held by the National Commission, as can be seen from the cases referred to in para 6 of the said order in the said case of M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd.
9. The Complainant having ceased to be a consumer the complaint could not have been decreed in his favour.
10. As a result, we allow both the appeals and set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint filed by the Complainant. We need to place on record that delay in disposal of the complaint, of almost six years, has only benefitted the traders (OPs) and not the complainant, for whose protection, the C.P. Act, 1986 was enacted.
[Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav] [Shri. Justice N.A. Britto] Member President /lm