M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 399 OF 2007

(Arising out of order dated 09.05.2007 passed in C.C.No.130/2006 by District Forum, Ratlam)

DR. B. L. TAPADIA                                                                                           …          APPELLANT

Versus

BABA HYUNDAI & ORS.                                                                                  …         RESPONDENTS.                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                          :      PRESIDING MEMBER  

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                      :      MEMBER                                   

                                      O R D E R

07.01.2021

          Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2.

            Shri Mahendra Dulani, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

As per Dr. Monika Malik :                       

            This appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 09.05.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.130/2006, whereby the complainant’s complaint has been dismissed.

2.                     Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties/respondents for selling him a vehicle-‘Hyundai Santro XP’ with defective engine.  The complainant before the District Commission had sought replacement of the engine, free of cost along with compensation for mental harassment caused, with costs.

3.                     Heard.

4.                     Learned counsel for respondent no.3 (National Customer Relation Through Manager, Hyundai Motors Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi) Shri Mahendra Dulani brought to our notice that the appellant had sold the vehicle in question, during the pendency of this

-2-

appeal without permission of this Commission to some Sanjay Lachheta in October-2014, who further sold the vehicle to another person, by the name of Roshan Kumar Sharma. He argued that the appellant is no longer a ‘consumer’, under the Consumer Protection Act and the present appeal filed by him is now not maintainable before this Commission. He placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in First Appeal No. 2343 OF 2019 (Priya Ajit Singh Vs Mahindra & Mahindra- Automotive Division and 3 Ors) decided on 02.03.2020.

5.                     Learned counsel for complainant/appellant also admitted the fact that the vehicle in question has been sold by the appellant to some other person.

6.                     Now since the appellant has already sold the subject vehicle, regarding which he filed a complaint before the District Commission and the appeal before this State Commission, the question remains that whether he ceases to be a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

7.                     In the judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed by the National Commission in First Appeal No. 2343 OF 2019 (Priya Ajit Singh Vs Mahindra & Mahindra- Automotive Division and 3 Ors), the National Commission has elaborately discussed the issue involved in the matter.  The National Commission while referring to series of its previous judgments has also referred to the judgment passed by it in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Hazoor Mahraj Bala Das Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhi IV (2013) CPJ 444 (NC), wherein it is held that once the vehicle was sold during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant does not remain a Consumer for the purpose of the Act.

                        The other judgment passed by the National Commission in M/S Honda Cars India Limited Vs Jatinder Singh Madan & Anr. has also been referred to wherein the National Commission has held that