At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that as per his instructions, the Petitioner is willing to refund the principal amount of ₹10,28,233/- to Respondent No.1/Complainant, along with simple interest @ 10% per annum, in 12 equated monthly instalments, with waiver of the litigation costs imposed in the order impugned in the present Revision Petition.  The offer made on behalf of the Petitioner is not acceptable to learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant, who is represented by the Counsel, although notice in the case has not yet been issued to him. 

Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on merits of the Revision Petition.

Challenge in this Petition, by Concord Hyundai, Concord Hyundai Automotives Pvt. Ltd., one of the Dealers’ in the vehicles manufactured by Hyundai Motor India Ltd., is to the order dated 09.12.2016, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/269/2015.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 29.01.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 260/2014.  By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1 herein, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in neither delivering the vehicle, namely, Hyundai Verna Car nor refunding a sum of ₹10,28,233/-, paid to them towards the cost of the vehicle, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to: refund the aforesaid amount to the Complainant within one month from the date of its order, along with interest @ 12% p.a., to be computed from the date of receipt of the said amount till realization; pay ₹50,000/- as penal damages for adopting unfair trade practices and deceitful manner of service; and pay ₹25,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and sufferings to the Complainant, with a default stipulation to the effect that if the Petitioner fails to comply with the said directions within 30 days from the date of the order, it shall be liable to pay to the Complainant penal interest @ ₹300/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.

The sole ground on which the correctness and legality of the said order is questioned by the Petitioner is that the subject vehicle could not be delivered to the Complainant, as the same had not been received from the Manufacturer.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the pleadings, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is utterly misconceived, malafide and abuse of the process of law. 

Apart from the fact that there is no pleading in the Written Version, filed on behalf of the Petitioner in opposition to the Complaint, stating the afore-noted reason for non-delivery of the vehicle, no explanation is forthcoming for not refunding the afore-stated amount, admittedly received by the Petitioner from the Complainant as the cost of the vehicle.  Be that as it may, both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that there was no justification for not delivering the vehicle by the Petitioner to the Complainant or refunding the amount received as cost of the same.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, it has also come on record that the cheque issued by the Petitioner in favour of the Complainant had been returned unpaid because of insufficiency of balance in the account.  In this regard, the following observations by the State Commission are quite apposite:

“It further appears from the materials on record that the Appellant issued cheque worth Rs.4,47,719/- to the Respondent No.1, but the same got dishonoured due to insufficient balance.  Surprisingly, no explanation has been assigned by the Appellant, when it claimed to have paid the sum of Rs.10,28,233/- to the Respondent No.1 in cash, what prompted it to issue further cheque of Rs.4,47,719/-.  If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the said cheque of Rs.4,47,719/- was issued prior to alleged payment of Rs.10,28,233/- to the Respondent No.1 in cash, quite naturally question would arise, as to why did it issue cheque for an amount of Rs.4,47,719/- only instead of Rs.10,28,233/-.  The logic that since this amount was paid by the Respondent No.1 as booking money, it issued cheque for a sum of Rs.4,47,719/- hardly holds any water as there is nothing to show that cheque for the balance amount was sent to the Respondent No.2 by it.  Moreover, if it indeed felt that since the Respondent No.1 paid only a sum of Rs.4,47,719/- from his own coffers out of the total price of the car, i.e., Rs.10,28,233/-, he was entitled this much amount only, the Appellant definitely owe proper explanation as to why did it at all paid back the entire price of the car to the Respondent No.1, as claimed by it.”

In light of the afore-noted concurrent finding of fact, which is not challenged as being perverse on any ground whatsoever, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned in this Revision Petition warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed, with costs, quantified at ₹10,000/-, since vakalatnama on behalf of the Complainant has already been filed by the learned Counsel.