1.   This revision has been filed under section section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 15.05.2017 of the State Commission in appeal no. 596 of 2016 arising out of the Order dated 09.06.2016 of the District Commission in complaint no. 230 of 2015.

2.       According to the complaint, it appears that the complaint was filed with the allegations of supplying of a defective generator set of 15 KVA silent diesel generator set with auto panel and battery with one year warranty on 21.07.2014, which had been creating problem in the first week November 2014 and ultimately on 10.11.2014 it had stopped working. On 12.11.2014, on complaint, the petitioners / opposite parties took away the generator set with them. After a period of one month, the petitioners / opposite parties installed a generator set without auto panel in lieu of earlier one in which also some fault had occurred. The complainant immediately intimated the opposite parties, who assured that they would replace the same with the original generator set as this one was installed temporarily. Thereafter despite several visits at the workshop of the opposite parties, they did not replace the said faulty generator set. Hence, the complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission for redressing his grievances.   

3.       It appears that the complaint filed by the respondent complainant was dismissed by the District Commission vide its Order dated 09.06.2016. Consequently, the appeal was filed by the respondent / complainant in the State Commission which upturned the Order passed by the District Commission and allowed the appeal vide its impugned Order dated 15.05.2017. The award made by the State Commission reads as follows:

a)         to remove the Genset installed at the residence of the complainant and replace the same by way of new Genset of the same capacity which was sold to him vide Bill No.579 dated 21.07.2014 with an extended warranty of one year within a period of three months from date of this order.

b)         If the opposite party No.1 fails to comply with the above direction it is directed to refund the amount of the Genset as paid by the complainant.

c)         to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.

 d)        to pay  Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.       Thereafter, the petitioners / opposite parties filed the present revision petition against the Order passed by the State Commission.

5.     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners / opposite parties and for the respondent / complainant. Perused the record included inter alia the impugned Order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the State Commission as well as the Order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the District Commission and the memo of petition.

 6.      The perusal of the record shows that the State Commission has thoroughly gone into all the factual aspects of the case and evidence adduced. It has reappraised whole matter at substantial length and has passed the Order containing infallible reasoning. It will not serve any great purpose to recapitulate the whole Order of the State Commission in extenso. The most relevant part which is germane to controversy may be quoted herein below:

13.       From the perusal of all these exhibits placed on record by the opposite parties, it clearly establishes that Genset, which was sold to the complainant was with auto panel and Battery as in comparison with price of Genset sold to other parties as there is a large variation in the prices of the Getsets sold by the respondents to different parties. Silent Diesel Genset of 25 KVA was sold to an individual for Rs. 1,02,870/- and 50 KVA Silent Diesel Genset sold to Hotel Uravishe for Rs. 3,50,615/- including VAT Surcharge and labour charges.

14.       Thus, it is apparently clear that 15 KVA Silent Diesel Genset with Auto Panel & Battery, which was purchased by the complaint amounting to  Rs.2,25,000/-, was of higher quality and the averment of the complainant stands proved that he was supplied a D.G. Set with Auto Panel System and Battery. It is admitted by the opposite parties that they have sold the Genset to the complainant.

15.       It appears that the District Forum had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The perusal of the record First Appeal No.596 of 2016 7 reveals that the complaint regarding the problem in the Genset purchased by the complainant was given on 10.11.2014 as is clear from the Job Card issued by the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties have installed the Genset which was an ordinary Genset and was not of the same Make which the complainant had purchased was running with the Auto Panel and Battery, meaning thereby, the grievance of the complainant was never redressed by the opposite parties. Merely installing a new Genset of different Make, does not absolve the opposite parties from the liability to provide the Genset of the same Make which the complainant has purchased by spending a huge amount. The complaint was made by the complainant within the warranty period i.e. before 20.07.2015.

16.       In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the warranty of the Genset has expired. The evidence clearly establishes that the opposite parties did not give the Genset of the same Make which the complainant has purchased. The new Genset installed by the opposite parties was only a temporary arrangement till the Genset of same quality which the complainant has purchased, is installed.

17.       So far as the contention of the opposite parties that the Job Card is fabricated one is concerned, the same cannot be accepted as opposite parties did not examine any expert witness to show that the document is forged and fabricated. To prove their contention, the opposite parties could have examined any handwriting expert. In view of this, the contention of the opposite parties is rejected.

7.       The reasoning and analysis done by the State Commission is self- evident and self-speaking and does not need any further elaboration while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. This Bench has to see whether there is any jurisdictional error involved and whether there is any material irregularity reflected in the impugned Order. This Bench finds none such infirmity in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission.

8.       Learned counsel for the petitioners has once again reiterated the submissions made before the State Commission but has simply failed to point out as to why the impugned Order may be castigated as suffering from jurisdictional error. Learned counsel has also not been able to show any material irregularity in the impugned Order and he has once again tried to persuade the Bench to reappraise all the facts and re-enter into them afresh. Even though such approach is not warranted under the law but in order to satisfy itself, the Bench has gone through the entire record all over again but does not see any element of perversity in the impugned Order or any such kind of error which may go to vitiate the impugned Order. The law relating to the revision is well settled. Unless it is found that the forum below has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it or where it is found that it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, the Court of revisional jurisdiction has to be loath in meddling with the factual findings arrived at by the forum below.  

9.       Suffice is to say that ex facie we find the Order of the State Commission  to be well-appraised and well-reasoned, this bench does not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings, and also does not find any reason to arrive at fresh findings de novo after
re-appreciation of the evidence in revision.

10.     In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Bench finds no reason to take a different view in the matter other than that has been taken by the State Commission. The instant revision petition being bereft of merit stands dismissed as such.

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.