JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL)

The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.564 of 2019 of the Petitioners against the order dated 03.07.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short “the District Forum”) in CC/421 of 2018 of Respondent no.1.

2.      In brief, the admitted facts of the case are that the Respondent no.1 had purchased a car manufactured by

-2-

Petitioners No.1 and 2 on 26.02.2016 for a sum of ₹11,54,000/-.  It was represented to him that the lock system used in the vehicle was antitheft system and that on locking of the car, the engine of the vehicle would automatically be locked and that there would not have been any possibility of theft of the car.  On 02.08.2018, when he went to Delhi and parked his car at Paschim Vihar, Neqar Jawa Nursing Home, it was stolen.  An FIR was registered with the police.  The CCTV footage showed that the thieves were easily able to open the lock of the car only within 16 minutes.  He thereafter filed a Complaint before the District Forum alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners and claimed compensation and the price of the vehicle.  The dealer who sold the car was also made a party to the said Complaint.

3.      Besides other preliminary objections, the plea taken by the Petitioners was that there was no manufacturing defect in the lock system and that the Complainant at no time had reported about the defects in the lock system.

4.      Parties led their evidences before the District Forum.  The District Forum after discussing all the evidences on record and giving prudence to the arguments of learned counsel for the

-3-

parties reached to the conclusion that there was unfair trade practice adopted by the Petitioners and also there was deficiency in service and issued the following directions:

“23.  As an upshot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs No.2 and 3 are directed to pay the price of the vehicle to the complainant i.e. after making depreciation of the car, used by the complainant for two years i.e. 1,50,000/- per year and remaining amount Rs.8,54,000/- is ordered to be paid by OPs No.2 and 3 to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 09.10.2018, till realization and further, OPs No.2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for selling defective lock system car to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and further OPs are directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. .” 

5.      This order was impugned by the Petitioners before the State Commission. In the Appeal, the Petitioners took the same pleas which had been taken by them before the District Forum.  After re-appreciating and re-assessing the evidence on record, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and issued the following directions:

18.    In view of our above discussion, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent stated below:-

i)      Opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 will pay an amount of ₹8,07,800/-, as assessed by us. If this amount has been paid by the Insurance Company concerned to the complainant, then the same is not payable. However, if

-4-

the amount less than ₹8,07,800/- has been paid by the Insurance Company, then opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 shall pay that less amount to the complainant.

ii)         Opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹8,07,800/- at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 9.10.2018 till the date of actual payment either by

Insurance Company concerned or by opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 as directed above.

Rest of the impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.”

6.      This order is impugned before me on the same grounds which had been raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission.  It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that there was no unfair trade practice adopted by the Petitioners and there was no deficiency in service and the amount of compensation to the tune of ₹1,00,000/- has been wrongly given.  They have also challenged the grant of litigation expenses to the Respondent no.1.  It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the amount of ₹8,07,800/- which was awarded by the State Commission to the Respondent no.1/Complainant already stands paid by the Insurance company to the Respondent no.1.

7.      I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the file.  The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act is very limited.  This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and

-5-

re-assess the evidences and substitute its own opinion to the facts of the case, especially when there are concurrent findings of facts.  It has been so held by the Honble Supreme Court in “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”.

8.      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.”   

-6-

9.      It is apparent that the only jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act is to see if the order is perverse i.e. not based on the evidences on record or that there is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the Forum below.  Learned Counsel has failed to point out that any piece of evidence which was there and not considered by the Forum below while reaching to the conclusion that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners.  Also no grounds have been shown by which it can be assessed that the Forum below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction.  Simply because the order is against the Petitioners it cannot be presumed that the order is perverse or has been passed without jurisdiction.  There is nothing on record to show that the grant of compensation is towards higher side or that the Respondent no.1 did not deserve litigation expenses of ₹15,000/-.

 10.  In view of the above, the present Revision Petition has                     no merit and the same is dismissed in limine along with pending application.