VIKAS SINGH Vs. B.M.W. INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vikas Singh, the complainant herein has filed the instant complaint against opposite party no.1 for selling inherently defective vehicle and against opposite party no.2 for deficiency in service with respect to the repairs and after sales service of the vehicle when the defects were brought to their notice. The complainant has prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) On reading of the complaint, prima facie it appears that instant complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission. Thus, we have heard arguments on issue of maintainability.

(3.) As noted above, the first ground on which the consumer complaint has been filed is that the opposite parties are guilty of selling inherently defective vehicle and they have not been able to remove the defects despite of the fact that subject vehicle was taken to the service station run by opposite party no.2 on several occasions. In this regard, it is suffice to say that complainant has no locus standi to raise the aforesaid dispute because as per the allegations in the complaint, he is not the original purchaser of the car and he had sold the car to a third person before filing of the complaint. It is categorically alleged in the complaint that subject car was originally purchased by M/s Walsons Services Private Limited from the dealer of OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.1,05,35,000/- on 14.05.2009. The said company used the car for three years and sold it to the complainant on 18.05.2012. From this it is clear that complainant is not the original purchaser of the car. In para 9.28 of the complaint, the complainant has categorically alleged that he sold the subject vehicle to one Sandeep Mirakhur on 27.03.2015 in consideration of Rs.20.00 lacs. The consumer complaint was initially filed by the complainant on 21.05.2015 but it was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint. The fresh complaint pursuant to the liberty granted has been filed on 12.06.2015. From the above sequence of events, it is clear that before raising a consumer dispute, the complainant had passed on the ownership of the subject vehicle to one Mr. Sandeep Mirakhur. Thus the complainant on the date of filing of the consumer complaint was left with no interest in the subject vehicle, therefore, he has no locus standi to seek relief in respect of the allegations pertaining to defective car having been sold by the opposite party and failure of the opposite parties to remove the inherent defects.