Hari Singh vs Shivdei Enterprises

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against impugned order dated 14.05.2012, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 71 of 2008. In this Appeal, the Petitioner/Opposite Party's appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 366 of 2006.

It is seen from the Record that Respondent No. 2 was deleted vide Order dated 10.10.2013 and none appeared for Respondent No. 1 for the past 11 occasions, therefore, vide order dated 04.10.2023, Respondent No. 1 was proceeded as ex-parte.

For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

The relevant facts of the case are that the Complainant is an agriculturist, obtained a loan from ICICI Bank to purchase a Farm EICHER tractor from Shivdei Enterprises for Rs.3,40,000/-. During the transaction, the OPs assured him that the tractor in question was a 2005 model and came with a warranty against defects. Subsequently, the tractor exhibited multiple malfunctions, including issues with its lift, water body and overall performance. Despite the Complainant's reports to Shivdei Enterprises consistently deferred the complaints and assured him that the manufacturing company would address the defects. Interestingly, Shivdei Enterprises sought a fee for repairing the tractor. Upon consultation with a private tractor mechanic, it was revealed that the said tractor was, in fact, an older 2002 model, contrary to the representation of it as a 2005 model tractor. This revelation was corroborated by the model year imprinted on the tractor body and tires, both indicating April 2000, as well as the identification markers such as the pump, engine, and chassis, all pointing to in fact a 2000 model. Additionally, the OPs intentionally interfered with engine and chassis numbers by dismantling and scratching them off. Despite his efforts in filing a complaint with the SP Sirsa, no tangible action was taken. The actions of the OPs are clearly unfair trade practices, particularly by misleadingly selling an older tractor model, misrepresenting it as a newer version, and deliberately altering critical identification markers. Being aggrieved, he filed Complaint No. 336 of 2006 before the District Forum and sought replacement of the said tractor with new one or refund of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest @24% p.a.; Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, Rs.5,500/- for litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- as loss of agricultural produce.

In response, Shivdei Enterprise (OP-1), countered the allegations by asserting that the Complainant had withheld crucial facts from the Consumer Forum. The complaint was a means for him to evade a due payment of Rs.30,000 owed to Shivdei Enterprise concerning the tractor in question. According to Shivdei Enterprise, the Complainant visited their showroom and secured a loan from ICICI Bank for purchasing an Eicher Tractor manufactured in 2005. They alleged that the engine and chassis numbers were clearly documented, and he paid Rs.18,000, and the remaining Rs.30,000 is outstanding to be paid, after settling the tractor's price. Shivdei Enterprise elucidated that due to his inadequate finances at the time of purchase, he opted to acquire a demonstration tractor (commonly termed a demo-tractor) exhibited in the showroom under No.380, with a rebate of Rs.18,000, structured as Rs.5844 for insurance, Rs.1500 for opening an account, Rs.2400 as registration and file charges, Rs.1500 for RC charges, Rs.6750 for documentation and Rs.18,000 for out-of-pocket expenses. Importantly, the tractor purchased was beyond its warranty period. The possession of the demo tractor was taken on 09.05.2005. Despite Shivdei Enterprise's request for the outstanding balance of Rs.30,000 he did not fulfill this obligation. Shivdei Enterprise emphasized that he was fully aware of the engine and chassis numbers at the time of the tractor's purchase, negating any alleged deficiency in service on their part.

The learned District Forum vide Order dated 07.12.2007 dismissed the complaint with the following order:

“…Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the complainant and after the refusal of the payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- the complainant settled the dispute regarding the tractor In question. Therefore, keeping in view the foregoing reasons and discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint of the complainant deserve dismissal, hence, we dismissed the present complaint of the complainant with no order to costs. We order accordingly. Copies of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the records.”

Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Complainant filed Appeal No. 71 of 2008 before the State Commission. The State Commission in its order dated 14.05.2012 dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following observation: -

“The complainant purchased the demo tractor on 28.4.2005 and the tractor purchased had manufacturing year 2002. The grievance of the complainant was that though the tractor was sold in 2005, however, it was 2002 model though in fact he was assured that it was 2005 model. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed on record photocopy of sale certificate wherein it was clearly mentioned to be demo tractor and statement of complainant regarding concession on being sold demo tractor. The plea of complainant stands falsified from the writing given by the complainant himself that he was told that the demo tractor model 380 act it was being purchased by him at rebate of Rs.30,000/- besides the total sale price was Rs.3,40,000/- which including ail the expenses. No manufacturing defect was found with the vehicle. Learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint of complainant. No ground to interfere in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.”

Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the State Commission, the Complainant/ Appellant has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no. 530 of 2013.

I have examined the pleadings and the associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and, (which is pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited scope for this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. There no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting any interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 are clear in this regard. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 has 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. .....”

Similarly, in a recent judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, has held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally  or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

In due consideration of the foregoing discussions and precedents, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.