The status of the complainant as a consumer should be considered on the day of the cause of action or filing of the complaint, and the complainant should have sought permission from the court before selling the vehicle.

ORDER

Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member(Oral)—Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard.

2. The main question swirls around the controversy whether after the sale of the vehicle, the complainant retains the position of a consumer or not . Having lost the cases before both the fora, the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition before this Commission. The petitioner submits that as per the judgment in Tata Motors Ltd. v. Shri Manoj Gadi, revision petition No. 2321 of 2008, the seller/complainant will retain the position of a consumer. Para 8 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"8. It may be observed that it may not be possible for the owner of a vehicle to retain the same for indefinite period or till the proceedings pending in the courts are finalized. The Transport Authorities also do not provide the registration certificate or fitness certificates beyond a particular age of the vehicle. It can also be stated that the status of complainant as consumer, vis-a-vis, the OPs has to be considered on the day of the cause of action or filing of the complaint and a person may not lose that status merely because of the sale of the vehicle due to any reason. However, in the current case, the facts and circumstances show that 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 v. M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. and 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."

It is, thus, clear that ultimately, the conclusion drawn by the National Commission is that the vehicle should not have been sold.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited another authority reported in National Seeds Corporation Limited v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another (2012) 2 SCC 506 and referred to paras 73 to 77. We are of the considered view that this authority is of no help to the complainant.

4. On the other hand, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.A. Britto, President of State Commission, Goa has authored a very good judgment based on various authorities to the effect that after the sale of the vehicle, the petitioner cannot retain the position of a consumer . He cannot be permitted to have the benefits of both the worlds.

5. The revision petition being sans merits is hereby dismissed.