1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against order dated 18.04.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.319/2021. In this Appeal, the Petitioners/OP-1&2 appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (“District Forum”) in CC No.174 of 2016.

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

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the complainant bought a JCB machine from Petitioner No.1/OP-1 on 31.01.2016 for Rs.15,97,500. The delivery was given by Petitioner No.2/ OP-2 in Jhunjhunu. Respondent No. 2/OP-3 is the manufacturer of the JCB machine. On 05.02.2016, the bonnet and the loader race tube of the machine got bent. The complainant contacted OP-1, who asked him to bring the machine in for repair. On 22.02.2016 he handed over the machine to OP-1 for repairs. But, the machine was not returned and he was informed that there was a manufacturing defect. The complainant emphasized that the machine was under warranty, which required the respondents to repair it.  The complainant rented the JCB to a paper mill, earning Rs.15,000 daily. The damage resulted in a loss of Rs.15,000 per day, totalling Rs.7,05,000. He also incurred transportation costs of Rs.73,000 for carrying the damaged machine. He further contended that OP-1 & 2 promised a reward gift of Rs.2,00,000, which was not provided. Due to damage and non-repair of the machine, he suffered financial, mental and physical distress. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum sought replacement of the JCB, Rs.7,00,000 for financial loss, Rs.50,000 for mental and agony.

4.      Notices were issued to respondents, and several opportunities were given to file replies. An ex-parte order was passed against the OP-1 on 14.06.2018.OP-2 was given another chance to file a reply.  Despite additional opportunities, no replies were filed by the OP-1&2. On 14.10.2016, OP-3 filed a reply with documents and contended that the complainant does not qualify as a consumer because the machine was purchased for commercial/professional purposes. Further, the warranty terms were violated and there were no manufacturing defects in the machine.

5.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 02.03.2021, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/OP-1&2 as follows:

“Order

12.  Consequently, Complaint of the Complainant is accepted against Respondent No. 1, & 2 and is directed that to change the Bonnet and Loader race tube of the JCB Machine as mentioned in the point No.2 of the Complaint within 1 month from today and if the same is not possible then to replace the machine with the same model of the JCB machine and if this is also not possible the amount of Rs. 15,97,500/- paid by Complainant on 31.01.2016 along with interest @ 8 per cent annual, from the date of filing i.e.22.03.2016 of the Complaint till the payment of the amount to be paid to the Complainant. Complainant is also entitled to receive an amount of Rs.200,000/- against mental agony and Rs.5,500/- against complaint cost.” (Extracted from translated copy)

6.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners/OP1&2 filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 18.04.2022 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:

 “So far the question is whether the Defendant No.1/ Complainant comes under the category of consumer, Defendant No.1/ Complainant has clearly mentioned in his complaint as well as in his affidavit that he has purchased the JCB machine for his livelihood and to earn money for upbringing of his family and his children. Same facts were also mentioned in the affidavit filed by Rampal.  Where the machine is purchased for earning livelihood there it cannot be considered that the Defendant No.1 / complainant does not falls in the category of consumer.

 So far as the question is raised regarding substantial changes done in the JCB machine, as it has been interpreted above that the machine is damaged during use after five days of purchase, which was in the warranty period and the warranty of the JCB machine received by the Appellants Rajesh Motors, it is clearly mentioned in the clause no. 1.10 that:-

 "This warranty shall cases to have effect if the purchaser removes or defaces or alters the manufacture's number or name plate or any other numbers or identification marks affixed to any JCB India products.”

 The counsel of the Appellants spoke about the disregard of the said condition during his arguments but there is no plea regarding the said disregard by the Appellants and no any affidavit is filed by them regarding the said fact. In this condition disregard of the said fact cannot be considered.

 Defendant no.2/ Respondent no.3 has filed affidavit of Mr. Umesh Bhangale, Manager Legal, JCB India Ltd., along with its reply, wherein the facts mentioned in the reply are verified, wherein no allegation regarding the alteration in the machine has been mentioned.

Subordinate District Forum by assuming no any manufacturing defect in the machine dismissed the complaint against Defendant no.2/ Respondent no.3 but even after issuing notices to Appellants/ Respondents No. 1 & 2, did not appear before District Forum and also did not rebuttal the facts mentioned in the complaint against them. In this condition there is no reason for not believing the facts mentioned in the complaint and the affidavit and believing the same subordinate District Forum has accepted the complaint filed by the Complainant, there is no ground to interfere on the basis of the facts mentioned in the complaint and there is no substance found in the Appeal, which is hereby accepted and the impugned order dated 02.02.2021, passed by subordinate District Dispute Redressal Commission, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) in Consumer Complaint no. 174/2016 (Dhanpat Vs. Rajesh Motors & 2 others) is hereby confirmed.”   (Extracted from translated copy)

7.      The learned Counsel for the OP-1&2 reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the complainant did not disclose that fundamental changes were made by him in the JCB Machine and additional attachment was added which was not in the original JCB Machine. It resulted in  the warranty of the machine shall cease to have effect if the purchaser removes or defects or alters the manufacturer’s number or name plate or any other numbers or identification marks affixed to any India Products. The complainant does not fall under the category of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986 as the machine in question was used in commercial activities. He sought for setting aside of orders both the lower fora. 

8.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Complainant argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission. He sought dismissal of the Revision Petition with costs.

9.      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.

10.    The learned District Forum issued a detailed order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined vide a well-reasoned order that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order.

11.    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 limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited. After due consideration of the entire material on record, 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.

12.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs SBI & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 432/2022 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. .....”

13.    Similarly, 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.

14.    In view of the foregoing deliberations, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the learned State Commission dated 18.04.2022 in First Appeal No.814/2022. The instant Revision Petition No. 814 of 2022 is, therefore, Dismissed.

15.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.