Megha Malhotra vs Dada Nissan & Anr

R.K. Agrawal, J., President

I.A. No.6326 of 2021 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the present Revision Petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the averments made in the Application. Cause shown is sufficient. The Application is allowed. Delay of 43 days is condoned in filing the present Revision Petition.

Ms.Megha Malhotra, the Petitioner herein has filed the present Revision Petition against the Order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) whereby the Appeal No.116 of 2018 has been dismissed and the Order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.326 of 2014 has been affirmed.

I have heard Mr.Anand Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Vipin Singhania, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and perused the Impugned Order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the State Commission as also the Order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the District Forum as also the Memo of Revision and the grounds taken therein and the documents filed along with it.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No.1 has charged excess amount of Rs.20,000/- by selling the Car, namely, Nissan Micra Mc Dci XE to the Petitioner herein as the Ex-showroom price of the Car was Rs.5,66,386/- but the Respondent No.1 was charged Rs.5,86,386/- in which logistic charges of Rs.8000/- were added. Further Rs.17,618/- were charged as Insurance Charges and Registration Charges of Rs.31,887/- of the vehicle were demanded by the Respondent No.1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the said amount be awarded which were charged excessively by the Respondent No.1 by enhancing the award passed by the District Forum. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 argued in support of the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission. The findings recorded by the District Forum as also the State Commission are based on appreciation of the evidence and material on record and do not suffer any illegality.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India And Anr., Civil Appeal No.432 of 2022, decided on 21.01.2022 has observed:

“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.”

Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or material irregularity. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.