Chander Kishore Khandelwal vs Magic Auto & Anr

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

This Revision Petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Petitioner / Complainant Chander Kishore Khandelwal against the Order dated 13.09.2011 passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 52/2009, wherein the Appeal was dismissed and the Order dated 18.12.2008 passed by District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in CC No. 182/2007 was confirmed.

The issue is a vehicle (car) purchased by the Complainant suffered “Manufacturing Defects” or not.

The complainant alleged that the Maruti Baleno LXI Car purchased from OP-1, which had several defects right from the beginning. The Complainant reported these defects multiple times to the customer care of the Manufacturer (OP-2). However the defects were not resolved, the Complainant requested a replacement vehicle, but the OPs refused. They assured that the vehicle would be repaired to the Complainant's satisfaction. Dissatisfied with the response, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum on 21.02.2007. The Complainant prayed for either a replacement with new vehicle or full refund, along with compensation for humiliation, harassment, and wasted fuel costs for testing, totalling Rs. 1,25,000 and Rs. 20,000, respectively.

The District Forum dismissed the Consumer Complaint with the following observation:-

“ As far as OP-2 is concerned, the Complainant has not placed any material in the form of inspection report or otherwise on the basis of which it can be mierred that the vehicle purchased by him from OP-1 manufacturer by OP-2 suffered from any manufacturing defect. Whatsoever defects which were pointed out on various occasions by the Complainant to the authorized service stations of OP-2, the same were removed and necessary replacement of the spare parts wherever necessary was also done free of cost. If certain parts/accessories which were not covered under the warranty the Complainant was asked to pay for the same. From the conduct of the Complainant, it is clear that he was just trying to make out case for replacement of the vehicle by pointing out one defector the other. From the job cards it is apparent that these defects are not manufacturing defects. All the repairs/works required tot be done were carried out by OP-2 as stated above. Complainant has taken the vehicle for third free service after completion of about 11,500 kms. whereas the vehicle should have been taken for third free service after completion of 10,000 km.”

Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Complainant / Appellant filed First Appeal No. 52/2009 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order passed by of District Forum-VII, Shaikh Sarai, New Delhi with the following observation: -

“13. By the time, Appellant filed the Complaint before District Forum on 05.03.2007, the vehicle already run more than 11,425 KM as is evident from retail cash memo dated 4.1.2007 filed by the Appellant himself on the record. Thereafter, the vehicle met with an accident on 11.4.2007 and the Appellant left the vehicle with Respondent No. 1 and wrote a letter of even date Ex-R1W1/1 intimating the National Insurance Company about the accident and requesting them to depute some surveyor to assess the loss. Instead of pursuing his claim with the Insurance Company for the repair of the vehicle, Appellant for the reasons best known to him, preferred to pursue his consumer complaint filed earlier hoping to get replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price. His contention that the accident had occurred only because of the manufacturing defect of the vehicle is ill-conceived. As already discussed above, he has failed to establish his case of manufacturing defect against Respondent No. 2."

Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Appellant / Complainant preferred this Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has failed to produce any expert opinion to establish that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect and therefore, he failed to discharge the onus to prove the manufacturing defect. It is also evident that the Complainant abandoned the vehicle after the accident and took it to the workshop of Respondent No. 1.

In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd[2011 11 SCC 269]

Similarly, in the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.[ Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.