1.           This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 17.11.2015 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattishgarh (in short “the State Commission) in First Appeal No.485/2014, whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

2.           Case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that on 02.01.2013 he purchased Renault Plus car bearing registration No.C.G.10 A 0428 from Respondent No.1 Opposite/Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 for a consideration of Rs.6,18,500/-. On 19.09.2013, the Petitioner brought the vehicle by towing to the workshop. On checking, it was found that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to driving of the vehicle without engine oil. The Respondents demanded repair charges despite the fact that the car was within the warranty period.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer:-

“1.        The vehicle of the OPs all the defects may be remove within one month and satisfaction certificate may be produced before the Hon’ble Forum and if they are unable to do this then the price of the vehicle Rs.6,18,500/-, the registration charges Rs.294/- and insurance premium of Rs.12,023/- alongwith 12% interest may be paid to the complainant.

2.                     The Complainant may also be awarded the amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and financial loss.

3.                     Cost of the suit and any other relief which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit may also be awarded.”

3.           The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Parties by filing the written statement. Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 3 filed joint written statement and Opposite Party No.2 filed separate written statement and contested the Complaint in the same manner stating that the Complainant for the first time brought the vehicle to the service centre of Opposite Party No.3 on 22.08.2013 with the complaint of low pick up. On checking, it was found that the engine oil chamber of the vehicle was damaged and the entire oil had leaked from the engine, due to which the pick-up got low. The Complainant did not allow opening of engine, therefore, only oil chamber of the vehicle was replaced and the car was returned to the Complainant to his satisfaction. On 19.09.2013, the Complainant again brought the vehicle by towing to the workshop. On checking, it was found that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to driving of the vehicle without engine oil, because earlier the Complainant did not permit checking of the vehicle by opening of engine. Consequently, the benefit of warranty was not given to the Complainant due to negligence of the Complainant. Opposite Party No.2 stated that the allegation of the Complainant related to the repairing work of the car. There was no allegation that defective car was given to him. Opposite Party No.2 was, therefore, not liable for any deficiency in service, if any.

4.           The District Forum after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record dismissed the Complaint.

5.           Aggrieved by dismissal of his Complaint, the Petitioner preferred First Appeal No.485/2014 with the State Commission. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal. Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

6.           Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents Nos.1 & 3 and carefully perused the written submissions of Respondent No.2 as prayed by the Proxy Counsel, and the entire record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the vehicle was under warranty period. The Respondents were liable to repair the vehicle free of cost. The State Commission ignored the fact that the Petitioner had filed an application for inspection of the vehicle from an expert, which was dismissed by the District Forum.

7.           Learned Counsel for Respondents Nos.1 & 3 submitted that the Respondent No.2 failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. On 19.09.2013 when the vehicle was brought to the service centre by towing it was noticed that the vehicle had already run 17,784 kms. Had there any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the same could not have been used for thousands of kilometres for almost 8 months. On 22.08.2013, when the Respondent No.2 first time brought the vehicle to the workshop of Respondent No.3, on inspection it was observed that the oil chamber of the vehicle was broken and the vehicle was running without engine oil and internal damage was caused to the parts of the engine. Respondent No.3 sought permission of the Petitioner to open the engine, which was refused by him. On the request of the Petitioner, oil chamber was replaced and engine oil was filled. The vehicle was handed over to the Petitioner after a test ride of 40 kms. It was also informed to the Petitioner that as he did not permit thorough inspection of the internal damage, problem may crop up in future. Engine of the vehicle was seized due to the negligence of the Petitioner himself.

8.           Respondent No.2 in the written submission stated that the Petitioner had not approached the District Forum with clean hands. In the Complaint, it was stated that he brought the vehicle to the workshop of Respondent No.1 on 19.09.2013. He supressed the material fact that earlier also on 22.08.2013, he brought the vehicle to the workshop of Respondent No.3 with the complaint of low pick-up. Respondent No.3 sought permission of the Petitioner to check the problem thoroughly by opening the engine, which he refused. The engine of the vehicle was seized due to running of the vehicle without engine oil. The loss caused to the Petitioner was due to his own negligence. Revision Petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

9.           Facts of the case are that on 02.01.2013 the Petitioner purchased Renault Plus car bearing registration No.C.G.10 A 0428 from Respondent No.1, manufactured by Respondent No.2 for a consideration of Rs.6,18,500/-. On 22.08.2013, the Petitioner brought the car to the workshop of Respondent No.3 with the complaint of low pick up. On checking, it was found that the engine oil chamber of the vehicle was damaged and the entire oil had leaked from the engine, due to which the pick-up got low. The Petitioner did not allow opening of engine, therefore, only oil chamber of the vehicle was replaced and the car was returned to him. On 19.09.2013, the Petitioner again brought the vehicle by towing to the workshop. On checking, it was found that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to driving of the vehicle without engine oil.

10.         At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the Petitioner had supressed the material facts in his Complaint filed with the District Forum. He did not disclose that prior to 19.09.2013 he also brought the vehicle to the workshop of Respondent No.3 on 22.08.2013. The findings relating to suppression of material facts are also recorded by the District Forum.

11.         As alleged by the Respondents, on 22.08.2013 the Petitioner brought the vehicle to the workshop of Respondent No.3 with the complaint of low pick-up. On inspection it was found that the oil chamber of the vehicle got damaged and engine oil had leaked. The Petitioner did not allow opening of engine, therefore, only oil chamber of the vehicle was replaced and the car was returned to the Petitioner. On 22.08.2013, the Petitioner was not given the benefit of warranty as the vehicle was being run by the Petitioner without engine oil. As the Petitioner did not allow Respondent No.3 to make thorough inspection of the vehicle by opening the engine, they replaced the oil chamber and told the Petitioner that the problem may occur in future also. When the Petitioner was not given the benefit of warranty on 22.08.2013, he did not make any Complaint either before the manufacturer or the District Forum. The Petitioner had also not disputed the facts narrated by the Respondents. Moreover, Respondent No.3 filed job card dated 22.08.2013, invoice and insurance claim related papers with the District Forum to support their case. On 19.09.2013 when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of Respondent No.1, it had run for 17,784 kms. The Petitioner had not filed any evidence contrary to the concurrent findings of the Fora below.  

12.         Moreover, 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: -

“13.       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.”

13.         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.”

14.         Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs and Ors. vs. N. Madhava Rao & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3408 decided on 05.04.2019) held as follows: -

“When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High Court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

15.     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.