State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Ltd. vs Geeta & Anr. on 30 May, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 30.05.2016 First Appeal No. 666/2012 (Arising out of the order dated 03.07.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 801/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi-110017) In the matter of: M/s TATA Motors Ltd. Unit-305, 3rd Floor, Tower-B Signature Towers, South City-I NH-8, Gurgaon-122001 .........Appellant Versus Mrs. Geeta W/o Mr. Virender Singh R/o E-143, Greater Kailash-II New Delhi-110048 M/s Vivek Automobiles Through its Proprietor A-1, Mohan Co-operative Indl. Estate Mathura Road New Delhi-110044 ..........Respondents CORAM N P KAUSHIK - Member (Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes N P KAUSHIK - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT
Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum VII, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi. Vide impugned orders M/s TATA Motors, the appellant (in short the OP-2) was directed to replace the vehicle in question or in the alternative to pay an amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- (jointly and severally with OP-1) alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase of the vehicle. Cost of repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,23,000/- incurred by the complainant were also awarded. Besides this, compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 25,000/- were also allowed.
In brief, admittedly the complainant/respondent-1 Ms. Geeta purchased a vehicle TATA Indigo Dicor Car from OP-1 on 04.05.2007. Complainant alleged that the vehicle started giving problem of overheating within a few days of its purchase. Vehicle was taken to the workshop of the OP. After necessary repairs, vehicle was handed over. Complainant alleged that the vehicle again started giving problems of engine seizure, engine oil leakage etc. Vehicle was again taken to the workshop where it kept lying for one month. Workshop mechanic informed that it was coolant leakage that led to the breakdown of the vehicle. It also damaged the Air Conditioner. Repairs were done. Again complainant discovered leakage of diesel. Vehicle was taken to the workshop where he was informed that there was serious problem requiring time to deal with.
Next grievance of the complainant was that the registration certificate given to her showed the car as TATA Safari Car instead of TATA Indigo Dicor Car. Due to this difficulty, complainant stopped using the vehicle. A new registration certificate has not been issued to the complainant so far.
Defence raised by the OP-2/appellant herein was that there was routine problem with the vehicle which was rectified. The reason for this problem was plying the vehicle on rough roads. In relation to the registration certificate, appellant assured that the new RC would be delivered to the complainant.
Ld. District Forum observed that the vehicle did not give trouble immediately after purchase. Even after assurance that the defect stood rectified, the problem continued. Engine of the vehicle seized which was a frequent problem with the vehicle. Taking the vehicle to the workshop did not work as new problems cropped up. Such problems were leakage of coolant, car breakdown, diesel leakage and damage to the AC. Ld. District Forum further observed that in the absence of any solution to the problems once for all, it was a case of 'deficiency in service'.
Present appeal has been filed on the grounds inter-alia that recording of the problem in the job card does not mean confirmation of such problems. Contention of the appellant is that the vehicle had met with an accident on 24.07.2007. It was brought to the workshop for accidental work and for scheduled first free service. The vehicle had done 2785 kms on its visit to the workshop on 22.06.2007. On 30.06.2007 it had covered 7530 kms.
I have heard at length the arguments addressed by the counsel for the appellant Sh. Deepak Joshi Advocate and counsels for the respondent Sh. Mohit Jolly and Sh. Vikas Malhotra Advocates.
During the course of arguments counsels for the parties have conceded that the vehicle in question stood sold by the respondent herein to one Sh. Kahanel Charan Singh on 28.01.2013. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has raised a plea that the respondent after the sale of the vehicle ceased to be a 'consumer'. He relied upon the case of Hoshiyar Vs. Major Amrit Lal Saini, I CPJ 2009 (NC), Rajeev Gulati Vs. TATA Engine and Anr. decided by the Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 466/2008, Dilip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114, and S P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, (1994)-(1)-SCC-1. In all the aforesaid cases, it has been held that the sale of vehicle during the pendency of the appeal disentitled the complainant from claiming himself a 'consumer' under Consumer Protection Act 1986. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Sh. Mohit Jolly Advocate has submitted that in the present case the vehicle in question was sold after the disposal of the complaint and during the pendency of the appeal.
There is no dispute with the proposition that the appeal is a continuation of the complaint proceedings. Whether the vehicle is sold during the pendency of the complaint or the appeal, immaterial. The relevant question is that the vehicle could not be produced by the parties for the purpose of getting expert opinion, if any. The vehicle in the present case has not been sold with the prior permission of this commission. In the case law referred to above the legal proposition laid down is that after the sale of the goods, the complainant ceases to be a 'consumer'. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present appeal is not maintainable. Even the relief granted to the complainant by the District Forum is of no avail to the complainant.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.
(N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)