H.G. JAIN Vs. VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Complaint arises out of an allegation of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties regarding the defects in a luxury car purchased by the Complainant manufactured by Volkswagen and purchased by the Complainant from the dealer M/s B. U. Bhandari Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 3 herein. The Complaint was filed on 17/4/2015 in which notices were issued on 1/5/2015. The Complaint originally designed had four Opposite Parties namely 1. Volkswagen A.G. (Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft); 2. Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.; 3. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. and 4. B. U. Bhandari Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The original Opposite Party No. 1 situated at Germany was sought to be served through the Ministry of Law and Justice. This exercise of service continued for long and ultimately the Complainant moved an Application for deleting the Opposite Party No. 1 through IA/1194/2022 that was allowed on 17/2/2022. Consequently, Opposite Party No. 1 was struck off from the array of parties.

(2.) Of the remaining three, the original Opposite Party No. 2 and 3, now Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 were served but in spite of service of notice they failed to file their written version within time and consequently their right to file a written version was rejected on 14/10/2015. RA/275/2015 was filed seeking review of the said Order which was also rejected on 14/12/2015. The said Opposite Parties approached the Apex Court by filing special leave to Appeal No. 35031 of 2015 that was dismissed on 4/1/2016. Consequently, the said Opposite Parties had their right to file written version forfeited but they have appeared through their counsel and who have advanced their arguments in support of the legal contentions raised by them.

(3.) The present Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 underwent a legal change of entity under a scheme approved by the NCLT Mumbai vide Order dtd. 5/9/2019. A copy of the said Order was placed on record through IA No. 17119 of 2024 filed on 27/11/2024 vide a Diary No. 39044. The said Application has been allowed on 2/12/2024 by us whereafter the orders were reserved. Consequently, with a change of entity as above the amended Memo has been filed and the same is on record. According to the amended Memo the dealer is now the Opposite Party No. 3. It may be pointed out that the dealer who was originally the Opposite Party No. 4 has filed his reply on 2/2/2016 vide Diary No. 5064. The said reply is the only written version which is on record regarding the allegations made in the Complaint. Since that is the only reply on Record, the same has been taken into consideration along with the documents filed along with the said reply. A reply was filed to the said response and the matter has been heard accordingly.