AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail.
The matter pertains to certain allegations regarding repair of the MAX Vehicle against the opposite party. Alleging certain deficiencies, the complainant filed consumer complaint no. 05 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (CG) (in short, 'the District Forum'), which was disposed of vide order dated 04.01.2013 directing the opposite party as follows:
11.As such, based on the entire aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 198 is allowed and it is ordered that within one month from the date of order:
(a)Respondent after repair of said vehicle to the satisfaction of complainant shall deliver it to the complainant without delay;
(b)Respondent shall pay Rs.1,44,000/- towards financial loss to the complainant @ Rs.18,000/- per month;
(c)Respondent shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for mental agony suffered due to aforesaid act; and
(d)Respondent shall also pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards advocate’s fee and cost of case.
As against which the opposite party filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) being FA no.491 of 2014. The State Commission vide its order dated 22.11.2017 has dismissed the appeal.
Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.
There are concurrent finding by the learned District Forum as well as the learned State Commission.
Hon’ble Supreme court in ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs SBI & Anr Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed:-
“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, 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) of the Act 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. After due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of learned District Forum dated 13.11.2013 in CC No.366 OF 2011 and the learned State Commission dated 26.06.2024 in First Appeal No. No.1091 of 2014.
On due examination of the order of the District Forum, it is seen that the respondent was directed to repair the said vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant and the same was to be delivered to the complainant on time. While the District Forum's order was passed on 04.01.2013, admittedly, the same has not been complied with and the vehicle is still retained by the opposite party. The learned counsel for the complainant states that the vehicle was purchased in March 2004. Therefore, as on date the vehicle is of 22 years vintage and, evidently, the life span of the vehicle in terms of the Motor Vehicle Act, had already lapsed.
It has further been stated that the vehicle had meet with an accident on 17.05.2012 and therefore, there is no scope for restoring the vehicle to a road worthy condition. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party/ petitioner that the vehicle cannot be repaired at this stage. Therefore, paragraph 11 (a) of the order of the learned District Forum dated 04.01.2013 cannot be complied with at this belated stage. Learned counsel for the complainant states that towards the repair of the vehicle Rs.1,33,159/- was paid by the complainant to the OP.
After due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties, in the absence of any scope for recovery of the vehicle and that, the complainant had paid Rs.1,33,159/- for repair of the vehicle to the OP, towards the equity and bring the dispute to an end, the order of the District Forum dated 04.01.2013 is modified as below:
Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards the depreciated value of the vehicle in question.
Opposite party is also directed to refund Rs.1,33,159/- paid by the complainant towards repair of the vehicle,
The opposite party shall also pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
This amount shall be paid within a period of two months from today. In the event of default, the opposite party will be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the entire amount for the delayed period.
With these directions, the revision petition is disposed of.