M/S. Champions Car & Anr vs Nirmala Devi & Anr

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 06.08.2019 of the State Commission in Complaint no. 813 of 2018 filed by the present petitioner against the complaint whereby the petitioner had challenged the order of the District Forum dated 20.08.2018 in complaint case no.115/2013.

The dispute between the parties is regarding the responsibility of getting the car documents transferred. While the complainant, who had purchased a second hand car from the petitioner, alleged that it was the responsibility of the petitioner, the seller, the petitioner has alleged that it was the responsibility of the complainant, the purchaser of the second hand car. To substantiate its contentions the petitioner has relied on an agreement dated 24.10.2012 and submits that as per this agreement it was the duty of the complainant to get all the papers transferred after purchasing the car.

On the other hand reliance is placed on following clause of the Agreement:

.......The first party after the payment of balance amount will receive the original documents, RC, Sale letter, No dues Certificate, Insurance and other documents from the second party for the said vehicle. So that the first party may get transfer in her name, transfer expense will be borne by the first party.

Main thrust of the petitioner is on this clause.

The complainant in her complaint has alleged categorically that she had paid a sum of Rs.5,020/- on 14.01.2013 to the petitioner for getting the documents transferred in her name. Relevant para 7 of the complaint is reproduced as under:

The opposite party no. 1 and 2 has given assurance to the complainant that on bringing the said vehicle to the workshop, the opposite party no. 1 and 2 will get it fixed and they will get the amount from the insurance company for the same. At first, the opposite party no. 1 and 2 informed the complainant that the expense incurred for transferring the papers is to be submitted to the opposite party no. 1 and 2, then only opposite party no. 1 and 2 will fix the said vehicle of the complainant. After getting the amount from the insurance company, they will do the necessary action at their end. At the same time, an amount of Rs.5,020/- towards the expenses incurred on transferring the papers had been submitted by the complainant on 14.01.2013 to opposite party no. 1 and 2 and got the receipt of the same. After this, the opposite party no. 1 and 2 had taken the signature of the complainant on the desired form for getting the amount from the insurance company. And also said that whenever the complainant bring the said vehicle to opposite party no. 1 and 2, then the vehicle will be fixed by putting the genuine parts of the company and will also get the claim amount. From the very outset, all the papers of the said vehicle are with the opposite party no. 1 and 2.

From perusal of the written version to the complaint of the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner has not denied the fact that they offered to get the paper transferred in the name of complainant and received sum of Rs.5,020/- for doing the needful. There is, therefore a clear cut admission on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner had received this amount and had taken up the responsibility of getting the documents of the car transferred in the name of the complainant.

This fact coupled with the advertisement in the newspaper given by the petitioner whereby it had promised to its customers "Hassle free Documentation", clearly establishes the fact that petitioner had taken up the responsibility to get the documents transferred in the name of buyers of vehicle for it. The reference to the agreement dated 24.10.2012, is of no consequence and does not help the petitioner in view of the fact that it had promised the complainant for getting the papers of the vehicle transferred in her name and for the same had also received sum of Rs.5,020/- from her. The petitioners therefore were bound to fulfil the promise.

It is a settled proposition of law that this Commission has a very limited revisional jurisdiction. It is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidences on record and substitute with its own conclusion on facts, especially when the findings on facts are concurrent. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269" which is as under:

"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".

Again in "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

"17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction."

It is apparent from the above discussion that the findings of the fora below are based on the cogent evidences on record and it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. There is no perversity in the impugned order. The present revision has no merit. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.