1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against order dated 16.05.2016 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 83 of 2016, whereby the Appeal was dismissed.

2.       The Case of the Complainant is that on 08.08.2015, at 10:15 am the Complainant booked two vehicles, Ford Ikon CH03A5625 and Ford Eco Sport CH01AX 8884 for service. The Opposite Party assured the Complainant that the service would be completed on time and asked him to wait in the waiting room. However, at 12:45 pm, when the Complainant enquired about the service status, he came to know that no work had even started and the vehicles were parked on the roadside. When the Complainant confronted the staff, he was told that only Ikon could be serviced and it would be ready by 4 pm. The Eco Sport, however, would be delivered the next day. The Complainant alleged that he is a retired Professor of History and pursuing research and the Opposite Party wasted the time of the Complainant and caused harassment to him. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint seeking compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.

3.       The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party. It was stated that during the service process, they were obligated to thoroughly inspect the vehicles and rectify any defects. There were already eight vehicles present at the service station and the Complainant's vehicles were ninth in line. The official of the Opposite Party promptly prepared the job card and inspected the vehicles. The job card for the Eco Sport was prepared at 11:00 am, and the job card for the Ikon was prepared at 11:20 am. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the vehicles would be delivered to them after completion of service, around 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm respectively. Instead of waiting for his turn, the Complainant caused disturbance at about 12:45 pm and took the vehicles with him.

4.       The District Forum, after hearing the Parties and perusing the record, vide order dated 20.01.2016, allowed the Complaint with the following direction:-

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant. Hence, the present Complaint of the Complainant is allowed against Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

[a] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service:

[b] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above, from the date of filing of this Complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.”

5.        Aggrieved by the impugned order of District Forum dated 20.01.2016, the Petitioner/Opposite Party filed First Appeal No.83 of 2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 16.05.2016, concurred with the finding of the District Forum with the slight modification to the effect that compensation was reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The order  for litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/- was upheld.

6.       Not satisfied by the impugned order dated 16.05.2016, Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed the Present Revision Petition with the following prayer: -

“a)    Allow the Revision Petition against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh in Appeal No. 83 of 2016, and/or

b)      Call for the records of the Appeal No. 83 of 2016 from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh and/or

c)       Pass such other additional/alternative / further relief to the Petitioner, as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

7.       IA/12297/2022 was filed by the Respondent seeking exemption from personal exemption. The application was allowed and Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was heard. Also carefully perused the evidence placed on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party submitted that the order passed by the State Commission was illegal, against law and facts, and not based on evidence on record. It was argued that the State Commission failed to consider the agreed delivery time for the vehicles. Furthermore, it is argued that the State Commission ought to have considered specialized staff and workload on the service centre. The Petitioner contends that the findings of the District Forum were speculative and against the evidence placed on record. It was argued that no cause of action arose in favor of the Respondent/Complainant prior to the agreed delivery time.

8.       The District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. In para 8, the District Forum observed as follows: -

“The Opposite Party have not placed on record the job cards of different vehicles which have come for service for us to believe that the Opposite Party were sincere enough to quote the tentative delivery date & time and the same could be co-related from the departure of such vehicles after service from Ann. OP-1. In the absence of complete evidence from the side of the Opposite Party, we are compelled to believe that the Opposite Party preferred to temper with the priority of its customers. For the reasons best known to it alone and the unsuspecting clients like the complainant are left to fend for themselves and wait indefinitely in the waiting area of the workshop and kill their time while the Opposite Party serviced the vehicles in pick & choose manner. Such a practice of the Opposite Party amounts to an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on its part towards its customers.”

As the Petitioner/Opposite Party did not produce any evidence relating to adherence of service schedule, the District Forum held that there was unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on their part. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum relating to deficiency in service and observed as follows: -

 “8. We feel that the order passed by the Forum is perfectly justified and no case is made out for interference in it. It is proved on record that both the vehicles of the Respondent reached workshop of the appellant for servicing between 10.00 A.M. to 10.20 A.M. However, job cards were prepared between 11.00 A.M. to 11.20 A.M. As such, there was delay in initiation of the process of servicing. It was further rightly noticed by the Forum that one vehicle bearing no.CH01BC-9903, which was brought for service at 10.03 hours i.e. just about a minute after the first vehicle of the Respondent, after service, was delivered at about 01.13 p.m. It was further rightly noticed that the appellant has failed to prove one record that the vehicles of the customers were serviced, as per first-cum-first serve policy. The Respondent was unnecessarily made to wait in the waiting room, for about more than two hours, and by that time, his vehicles were not even touched by any worker of the appellant. Thus, we feel that there was a clear-cut deficiency in providing service to the Respondent, on the part of the appellant. The order passed by the Forum is perfectly justified.”

9.       The deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party is held proved by both the Fora below. The State Commission, however, only reduced the compensation. No evidence has been produced by the Opposite Party regarding adherence of schedule and priority followed in carrying on the servicing of vehicles. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269  has held as under: -

“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.”

10.     Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23.        The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their 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.”

11.     For the foregoing discussion, we see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.