K.N. Premnath vs Ralas Motors & 2 Ors

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 03.07.2019, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.379 of 2019. In this Appeal, the Petitioner/Complainant’s appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.CC/17/366.

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

Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased the vehicle No.CG 04 LC 3920, Mahindra TUV 300 T 8 Black Colour on 11.12.2015. The total value of the said vehicle was Rs.10,93,290/-. It is averred that the said vehicle stopped anywhere, anytime or its deteriorated while the said vehicle was still in the guarantee period. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint on the ground of manufacturing defect seeking replacement of the vehicle before the District Forum.

In reply, OPs contended that if indeed there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle or it would deteriorate or stop repeatedly then it was not possible to drive 22120 KM in 11 months. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.

The learned District Forum vide order dated 12.04.2019, dismissed the complaint with the following observations:

“13. In the case, the complainant, in paragraph 5 and 9 of his complaint, has so far alleged that the Opposite Party No. 3 was kept in the workshop after the alleged vehicle was damaged, whereas the complainant has introduced the bill dated 03.02.2018 issued by the Opposite Party No. 1 in the case as per Annexure A-43, which is a reliable document due to the complainant, this bill Annexure A-43 has been issued by the Opposite Party No. 1 on 03.02.2018, which is a date during the pendency of the case. In this Annexare A-43, it is recorded that the vehicle has to be run for 43493 km. In such a case, the complainant's assertion that the vehicle is in workshop of the Opposite Party No. 3 proves false. In the case it is clearly shown that the vehicle itself is in the possession of the complainant, which is being run uninterruptedly by the complainant, which, even during the pendency of the case, has run 43493 till 03.02.2018. This fact clearly establishes that the complainant has not appeared to demand justice with clean hands. In such a case, there is no reason to believe the complainant's objection to the construction or technical fault in the alleged vehicle.

Since, the complainant himself has admitted to servicing the vehicle in the case, in support of which the service record bill of the alleged vehicle is presented by the complainant. According to Annex 5, at the time of the third free servicing of the vehicle, it is mentioned to run 22120 km till 12.11.2016, which is a reliable document due to the documents submitted by the complainant. The complainant purchased the said vehicle on 11.12.2015. In such a situation, if there was serious manufacturing default in the said vehicle then it would not be possible to operate as much as 22120 km in 11 months. In this case, the scenario is established that the complainant underwent excessive operation and negligent maintenance of the new vehicle in question, causing problems in it. In such situation, we do not find Opposite Parties responsible for the business misconception and deficiency in service.

It is evident from the review of the case that the complainant has objected to the manufacturing and technical default in the vehicle in question. We find that no document and evidence or expert report of any kind has been presented by the complainant in relation to the said attack in respect of the vehicle in question. As well as, it is worthy to mention here that the complainant has done the third servicing after 11 months of purchase of the vehicle after running 22120 km on 12.11.2016, till then the complainant did not make the Opposite Parties aware of any problem like vehicle malfunction. In such a case it is not an inducement that the complainant's vehicle has any problem like manufacturing default.

We find that the Complainant is silent on this question that in fact, if there was a manufacturing or technical defect in his vehicle, then how can the vehicle be run up to 22120 km in 11 months? In this case, we determine that the complainant has failed to authenticate the complaint of manufacturing default in his vehicle. For this reason we do not find the complainant's complaint acceptable.

In the case it is clearly established that the complainant has failed to prove the assertions stated in his complaint through documents and evidence.

From the above evidence, we conclude that there is proper ground of deficiency in service and business misconception done by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, we do not find proper basis to accept the claim of the complainant and dismiss the complaint.

Parties will bear their cost of litigations themselves by seeing the circumstances of the case.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 03.07.2019 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:

“As within 11 months, the vehicle in question covered 22120 Kms, prima facie goes to show that there may be no manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question, which requires for replacement of the vehicle. So far as servicing of the vehicle is concerned, it goes with number of Kms run by the said vehicle. The appellant/complainant had not made this this prayer for repair of the said vehicle to the satisfaction as required and only prayed for replacement of the vehicle in question as the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defects.

On consideration of the entire matter as the in question was still with the vehicle appellant/complainant and as the concerned District Forum has rightly appreciated and held that as the appellant/complainant failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defects in the vehicle, and dismissed the complaint filed by appellant/complainant. We do not see any reason to take a different view as taken by the concerned District Forum in the impugned order.

Consequently, we hereby dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant at the motion stage itself. No order as to the cost of this appeal.

Copy of this order be provided to the appellant forthwith, free of cost.”

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Complainant was using the vehicle as per the norms of the company and all the servicing were done on time and the problem in the vehicle was from starting and regarding this the OPs have accepted. He sought the impugned orders of the lower fora be set aside.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents/OPs argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission.

I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. This was primarily because on the grounds that the vehicle has run around 43,493 KM as on 03.02.2018 and the Petitioner has not provided any expert report on the allegations made. In any case, necessary action to establish ‘manufacturing defect’, if any, under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act of 1986 has not been complied with. This order is now under challenge at the revision stage.

It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on 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.

In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“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 order 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.

Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.