1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the Order dated 10.08.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 1486 of 2011. In the impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (‘District Forum’) order dated 16.09.2011 in CC No. 304/2011.

2.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before District Forum. The Petitioners herein, M/s Tricity Autos, Mr. Dhruv Garg and Mrs. Rita Garg are referred to as OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 respectively, while the Respondents herein, Mr. Jagdeepak Singh Bedi and Mr. Mohit Manav are referred to as the complainant and OP-4 respectively.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that on 31.07.2009, he intended to purchase a Maruti Swift Car (Diesel) from Tricity Auto, a Maruti Car Udyog dealer, and selected a car with Engine No. D13-1253089, Chassis No. MA3FKEBISO0455735 and Model 2009, as per Invoice No. TA 0314/31.7.2009 for Rs.5,04,928/-. The finances were arranged through the State Bank of India, Chandigarh. Subsequently, the Complainant sought to purchase a Maruti Swift Desire VDI and obtained a quotation (No. 011 dated 25.08.2009) for Rs. 6,12,436/- from OP, who instructed his employee, William Massih, to issue it. OP-2, Dhurv Garg, assured the Complainant that he would secure loan approval and have a demand draft issued in favour of Tricity Auto for the vehicle's purchase. Following this, the Complainant applied for a loan based on the quotation and had a draft (No. 36689 dated 19.09.2009) prepared for Rs. 6,12,436/- in favor of Tricity Auto, with a hypothecation letter dated 19.09.2009 was also issued by the bank. OP-2 Dhurv Garg, an authorized Maruti dealership dealer at Zirkpur, was identified as the Managing Director of Tricity Autos, with Sh. Ajay as the General Manager responsible for daily operations, and William Massih as the Sales Executive in charge of vehicle bookings. The Complainant handed over the draft bearing No.36689 dated 19.09.2009 for Rs.6,12,432/-and hypothecation letter dated 19.09.2009 as directed by OP-2 in the presence of Manjit Singh and Ajay, the Complainant's son. OP-2 assured prompt delivery of the Maruti Swift Desire Car but then employed delaying tactics. Upon inquiring with the bank, the Complainant discovered that the draft had been encashed on 23.09.2009. The complaint alleges that OPs 1 to 3, in collusion, delivered the vehicle to OP-4, Mohit Manav, against the Complainant's draft. OPs 1 & 3 were aware that the draft for Rs. 6,12,432/- was provided by the Complainant and it was encashed on 23.09.2009. OP-4 previously provided a booking cheque (No. PNB/50085 dated 16.09.2009) for Rs.4,00,000/-, which was encashed in Tricity’s account on 17.09.2009. OP No. 4 later claimed to have paid Rs. 2,12,436/- and denied handing over any draft to OP-2. The complaint contended that OPs conspired to cash the cheque of OP-4 by impersonating his identity, using a forged driving license with a substituted photo. He reported this matter to the police and has now filed the present complaint seeking a directive for the OPs to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest for the embezzlement of the draft amount deposited by the Complainant for the car purchase.

 4.   In their written version, the OPs denied that the complainant's allegations and stated that he had already approached the police and lodged FIR No. 269 dated 16.09.2010 under Sections 406, 420, and 120(b) of the IPC at Police Station Zirakpur regarding the matter, despite OPs 1 to 3 promising to return the booking amount of Rs. 6,12,436/-. OP-1 delivered the car to OP-4 based on the payments received from him, with the excess amount being released by OP-1. The responsibility to explain the source of DD of Rs.6,12,436 rested solely with OP-4. OPs denied any conversation regarding the transaction between the complainant and OP-2, asserting that such dealings were handled directly by their representatives. William Massih, a former employee who had since left their service, admitted to committing fraud during the police investigation and entered into a compromise with the complainant through an affidavit dated 23.06.2010. William Massih acted in his personal capacity and that his actions did not constitute a deficiency in service on their part. OP-4 initially deposited Rs.4,00,000/- via cheque as the car's price. They further contended that the complainant did not seek a refund of the draft amount, as he never handed it over to their staff, but instead compensation is claimed, which this Forum was not authorized to grant and the complainant should file a regular civil suit for recovery.

5.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 16.09.2011, allowed the complaint with the following finding:

“11. So far as OP Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, there is no relationship of service provider and consumer between them and the complaint against them is, therefore, not maintainable notwithstanding their liability, if any, under the criminal or civil law.

12. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed against OP Nos. 1 to 3. OP Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 6,12,436/- with interest thereon @ 9% P.A. w.e.f 19.09.2009 till the date of actual refund. It is a case of blatant harassment and inconvenience caused to a customer by the employee i.e. Sales Executive of OP Nos. 1 to 3. It would have been appropriate for OP Nos. 1 to 3 at the initial stage to refund the amount of the complainant or to deliver him a car instead of forcing him to get FIR registered and to approach this Forum. This prolonged harassment to the complainant, in our view, further entitles him to a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only). OP Nos. 1 to 3 should also pay to the complainant litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. They are directed to comply with this order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs. 1, 00,000/-shall also carry interest at the aforesaid rate from the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 20.07.2011 till the date of actual payment. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.”

6.      Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, OP-1,2 and 3 filed FA No. 1486 of 2011 and the State Commission vide Order dated 10.08.2015 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations: -

“6. … We have examined the evidence on the record carefully with the able assistance of counsel for the parties in this case. Undisputedly, William Mash and Ajay Kumar, alleged to have committed embezzlement of the amount of Rs.6,12,436/-, as deposited by the complainant with sale executive of OP No.1. OP No.4/Mohit Manav sought purchase of the similar car from OP No.1. Mohit Manav had not paid the entire price of the car and rather deposited cheque for Rs. 4 lacs instead of total amount of Rs.6,12,436/- in this case, as price of the vehicle. Generally, a person would not deposit less price of the vehicle with the dealer. OP No.1 deposited the amount of Rs. 2,12,436/- only with the OP instead of total price of the vehicle as Rs.6,12,432/- Mr. William Masih was the Sales Executive of OP No. 1 and he received the demand draft from the complainant of Rs.6.12,436/- This demand draft has been encashed in the account of the OPs, vide Ex.C-4 on the record. The OPs sold the car to OP No.4 instead of selling it to the complainant despite having encashed demand draft of Rs.6,12,436/- from the complainant, which was the total price of the car. The complainant lodged the FIR against OPs. Mr. William Masih suffered his affidavit Ex. R-7 on the record that he agreed to return the amount of Rs.5,60,000/- through instalments along with interest. Vide statement of account Ex.C-1, the demand draft of Rs.6,12,436/- was in favour of OP No.1 and it has been corrected in the account of the OPs on 23.09.2009. The submission of the appellants is that William Masih was individually responsible for the defalcation of the amount deposited through demand draft by the complainant with him. We do not agree with this submission raised by the appellants before us. William Masih was pivotal employee of the OP and he was the agent of the OPs and the principal is bound by the acts of the agents. Consequently, we overturn this submission of the appellants that William Masih would be individually responsible for the demand draft of Rs.6,12,436/- to the complainant only. Generally, agent could have no guts to embezzle such large amount without the connivance of the principal. The demand draft was in the name of OP no.1. OP no. 1 is certainly a service provider to complaint and complaint is consumer of OP. We conclude that OP No.1 to 3 are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficient service to the complainant. Once the complainant has paid the demand draft in favour of the dealer, which has been encashed for the full price of the booked car, therefore, there is no excuse or alibi with the OPs to deny the delivery of the car to the complainant. Copy of the FIR lodged by the poor consumer is Ex.C-5 on the record in this regard. Once, it is proved that complainant paid the demand draft of the entire price of the car and it has been received by the authorized agent of the dealer on behalf of principal and has been duly encashed in the account of the dealer, then, there is no question of denial of delivery of the car to the complainant. It is for principal to recover the amount from the agent and principal cannot deny the delivery of the car to the complainant, once the amount of the car has been deposited in the account of the authorized dealer through demand draft by the complainant. We are in agreement with the findings of the District Forum, which are in consonance with the pleadings and evidence on the record. Counsel for the complainant could not point out any legal infirmity or material irregularity in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference therein. We reject the submission of the appellants, as they sought to be absolved of this liability on technical ground, despite the fact that the price of the car has been received in their account on behalf of the complainant.

7. As a result of our above discussion, we affirm the order of the District Forum, Mohali dated 16.09.2011, under challenge in this case and resultantly the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite parties no. 1 to 3 is ordered to be dismissed.”

7.      Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, OPs 1 to 3 filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer:

(i) Admit the present Revision Petition and Issue Notice thereof to all the Respondents;

(ii) Call for the entire records pertaining to First Appeal No. 1486 OF 2011: decided by the SCDRC, PUNJAB on 10-08-2015 as well as the record pertaining to Consumer Complaint No. 304 OF 2011 decided by the DCDRF-SAS NAGAR MOHALI, C. on 16-09-2011.

(iii) Set aside the Order dated 10-08-2015 passed by the SCRC, PUNJAB in First Appeal No. 1486 OF 2011 & and Order dated 16-09-2011 passed by the DCDRF SAS Nagar Mohali in CC No. 304 of 2011

(iv) Pass any other order/direction in the peculiar circumstances of the present Revision Petition.

8.    Learned counsel for OPs 1 to 3 vehemently argued that that both the District Forum and the State Commission have erred in their interpretation of employer liability for employee fraud, neglecting the principle of caveat emptor and unjustly favoring the opposite parties. He argued that the complex nature of the dispute, which involved allegations of conspiracy, could not have been effectively resolved through the summary procedures provided by the Consumer Protection Act and should instead have been adjudicated by a Civil Court. The Counsel further stated that the forums had exceeded their jurisdiction by awarding a refund when the complainant had not requested such relief. He contested that the allegations of negligence and conspiracy lacked merit, pointing to deliberate omissions and misrepresentations by the complainant. The Counsel noted that additional documents revealed the complainant’s history of loan defaults and inconsistencies in his statements regarding the transaction. He emphasized that both the complainant and OP-4 failed to follow standard business protocols, such as obtaining receipts for payments, and their silence on this matter suggests a lack of good faith, thereby undermining their claims. The Counsel concluded that the complainant had not made any payments towards the car, and the petitioners had been wrongfully ordered to refund an amount not requested by the complainant. He therefore prayed that this Forum allow the revision petition, dismiss the consumer complaint, or in the alternative return the deposited amount or remand the matter to the District Forum for proper adjudication based on the additional documents and the errors in the lower court decisions.

9.    The Complainant appearing in person reiterated the facts of the complaint as initially presented, emphasizing the key elements and details that had been outlined in the original submission. He affirmed his support for the findings of the State Commission and District Forum. Asserting that the conclusions drawn and the decisions made by the Commission were correct and justified based on the evidence and arguments presented. In light of this, the Complainant requested that the Revision Petition be dismissed, arguing that the petition lacked merit and that the judgment of the Learned State Commission should be upheld.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of both the for a below, and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the earned Counsel for OPs and complainant in person.

11.    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. There are no new grounds that have been brought out by the Petitioner so as to warrant any interference with the concurrent findings in the case.

12.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the learned State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. In this regard, I would like to rely upon 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.

13.    Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:-

“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. .....”

14.    Similarly, 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.

15.    Based on the discussion above, the learned District Forum and State Commission have passed a detailed and well-reasoned orders based on evidence and law. There are no new grounds that have been brought out by the Petitioner so as to warrant any interference with the concurrent findings in the case. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.

16.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

17.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.