For the Petitioner : Mr. Samarth Agrawal, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate along with Authority Letter For the Respondents : Mr. Souvik Chatterjee, Advocate for R-1 (VC) None for R-2 ORDER PER SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenging order dated 08.08.2017 of the West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No.A/281/2016 and confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit I, Kolkata (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.CDF/Unit-I/Case No.197/2014 dated 30.06.2015. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us. 3. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the Respondent No.1 booked a Toyota Innova Car on 08.09.2012 with the Petitioner and, thereafter, changed the booking to a Tata Aria BS IV car for ₹12,26,446/-. Respondent paid ₹4,22,225/- through two cheques. The balance was to be financed through bank assistance. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner failed to deliver the car even after over 6 months. Refund claimed by the Respondent was agreed to with deduction of cancellation and other charges which was protested and a legal notice issued to Petitioner. A complaint praying for delivery of the vehicle with necessary documents or refund of ₹4,22,225/-, with interest, compensation and cost was filed before the District Forum which was decided ex parte as Petitioner failed to contest despite notice. Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 was held liable for deficiency in service and refund of ₹4,22,225/- with compensation of ₹40,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation costs of ₹5,000/- within 30 days and in default 10% interest till realization was directed. Appeal before the State Commission against this order was dismissed on grounds of limitation of 244 days holding that the cause shown for condonation such as the demise of two Directors and the counsel’s busy schedule was not sufficient. This order has been impugned before us. 4. From the records it is evident that the fact of the booking of the vehicle by the Respondent with the Petitioner is not in dispute. It is stated by the Petitioner that ₹4,22,225/- was refunded during the pendency of the case and, therefore, the order of the District Forum was erroneous since there was no refund to be made. It was also contended that compensation awarded and costs be not imposed. In view of the admitted position that the booking of the vehicle was cancelled and Respondent’s letter seeking refund was acknowledged by the Petitioner on 21.10.2013 and replied to on 25.11.2013 stating that the refund would be done in 15 to 45 working days, there is no dispute with regard to the Respondent’s contentions before the District Forum. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal against these findings on limitation. 5. This Commission, in exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record on facts. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that has not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises, i.e., evidence which is either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is, therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel & Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 286 decided on 02.08.2016 and T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. Vs. N. Madhava Rao & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 decided on 05.04.2019, revisional jurisdiction is warranted to be exercised by this Commission in cases of concurrent findings on facts by the lower fora only where there is either a jurisdictional error or a material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice. 6. In the instant case, the conclusion of the District Forum is based on a finding that there was a consideration received for a service of providing a vehicle with necessary registration and papers which was admittedly not done after lapse of over 6 months. The receipt of the consideration was acknowledged by the Petitioner and was, in fact, undertaken to be refunded within 15 to 45 working days which was also not complied with by the Petitioner. Deficiency in service has, therefore, been concluded on part of the Petitioner and it has been directed to refund the amount of ₹4,22,225/- with compensation of ₹40,000/- and litigation cost of ₹5,000/- within 30 days failing which, with interest @ 10% thereon. 7. The issue which falls for consideration is whether there is any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the fora below. 8. In view of the discussion above, and the facts and circumstances of this case, as per which the Petitioner has accepted that consideration was received by him and there was delay in the handing over of the car in question, deficiency in service is fairly established. Accordingly, we find that the order of both the District Forum and the State Commission are reasoned and do not suffer from any irregularity or jurisdictional issue. We, therefore, find no reason that warrants interference with the findings therein. For the foregoing reasons, the Revision Petition is found to be lacking in merits and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed with this order. |
