1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.02.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 851 of 2012  in which order dated 27.02.2012 of  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1 Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 358 of 2009 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 08.02.2013  of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP No.1)  was Respondent no.1 before the State Commission and OP No.1 before the District Forum,  Respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was the Appellant before State Commission and Complainant before District Forum.  Respondent nos. 2 and 3 ( hereinafter referred to as OP Nos. 2 and 3) were respondent nos. 2 and 3 before the State Commission and OP Nos. 2 and 3 before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondents on 05.09.2013.  Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 19.10.2023.  Respondents were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.0.2015.  Delay in filing the revision petition was condoned after considering the reasons stated in the application. 

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant booked Swift VDI model on 14.11.2007 by paying a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh through DD drawn in favour of OP No.1.  OP No.1 received the demand draft  and assured to complete the documentation at the time of delivery of the vehicle.  The OP No.1 encashed the demand draft and recommended to avail loan facility from the OP No.3 for payment of sale consideration.  OP No. 3 sanctioned loan and paid an amount of Rs.2,87,850/-  through demand draft in favour of OP No.1, who issued a receipt.  According to the complainant, OP No.2 did not deliver the car even after lapse of 16 months and denied receipt of amount paid for booking of the car.  The Complainant got notice issued demanding refund of the amount and interest.  The complainant also lodged complaint with police who registered the case as Crime No. 95 of 2008.  The OP No.1 issued reply to the notice dated 04.06.2008 of the complainant and OP no.3 also issued reply confirming the car loan transaction and payment of the amount of Rs.2,87,850/0 to OP No.1.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 27.02.2012 dismissed the Complaint with liberty to the Complainant to pursue his remedy in any competent Civil Court.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 08.02.2013 allowed the Appeal against OP No.1 and 2.  However,  complaint against OP No.3 was dismissed.  Therefore, OP No.1 / Petitioner is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 08.02.2013 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. Impugned order suffers from material irregularity as Hon’ble Commission without adverting into the preliminary jurisdictional objection raised by the Petitioner, proceeded to adjudicate the complaint by exceeding its jurisdiction over a subject matter which was outside the realm of the Act.

2. State Commission has wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the subject matter contrary to the settled laws that matter involving fraud, cheating and forgery, Consumer Forum should not entertain a complaint in a routine fashion.

3. The  State Commission ought to have relegated the parties to a civil court for adjudication of their disputes as only Civil Court are competent to appreciate detailed evidence.

4. District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint for reason of lack of jurisdiction.

5. There was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent no.1 and State Commission proceeded on a wrongful assumption that Respondent was a consumer.

6. Merely by money coming into the account of petitioner by way of demand draft, which does not provide the name of the respondent, the Fora below have wrongly  held that there exists a concluded transaction of sale and purchase when in fact there was no agreement between the parties in regard to alleged transaction.

7.  All the exhibits filed by the complainant before the Forum were procured, forged and unauthorized.

8. State Commission has not considered the FIR registered by the petitioner.

9.  It is the admitted case of the respondent that he paid the money in cash to Mr. T. Phani Choudary personally, the State Commission has erroneously held the Petitioner liable to repay the said amount  to the respondent and conduct of the respondent in not arraying Mr. Chowdary as party in the complaint raises a suspicion of collusion between the respondent and Mr. Phani Chowdhary.

10. State Commission has erred in passing the impugned order by considering that District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction especially in view of the fact that criminal matter is pending before the Competent Court, which includes a collusive nexus between Mr. T Phani Choudhary and various alleged complainants.  The summary order under the Act prejudices the rights of the petitioner in as much as Petitioner is also an aggrieved party.

11. The alleged transaction is a sham in as much as complainant  had transacted for purchase of new car from Mr. T Phani Chouday, who was  not in the service of the petitioner as on the date of alleged transaction and in any event, Mr. T Phani Choudary, when employed by the Petitioner was dealing in True Value / Used Car Division and not in any manner authorised for dealing with sale of new cars.

12. Complainant does not fall under the category of consumer in as much as at the time of alleged transaction between the Complainant and Mr. Phani Chowdhary, the said Mr. Phani was not in service with the petitioner.

13. State Commission has erred in passing the impugned order in  a summary manner without even considering that final report from police on the issue is awaited. 

6.       Heard counsel  for the petitioner.  Since respondents were proceeded ex parte,  the case is being decided on merits on the basis of the revision petition, written submissions filed by the petitioner and other case records.  Counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points which are stated in para 5 argued that State Commission ignored the documents filed by the Petitioner  It is further argued that by counsel for the Petitioner that there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and Respondent no.1 as respondent no.1 failed to prove handing over of DDs to the Petitioner.  Respondent no.1 never dealt with the Petitioner directly and due practices for booking and delivery of the car were not followed but dealt with an unauthorized person Mr. Phani Chaudhary, who had committed misappropriation of funds and also fraud with cheating with several customers of the petitioner for which his services were terminated and criminal proceedings were initiated which is pending adjudication.  Respondent no.1 is also not a consumer of the Petitioner, hence Complaint is not  maintainable.  It is further argued that in a similar matter CC No. 364 of 2008 filed by one Mr. Pratap Chaudhary before the District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the District Forum dismissed the complaint granted liberty to the Complainant  to pursue his remedy in Competent Court  against which Complainant went to State Commission and State Commission dismissed the appeal.  Counsel relied on the following  judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court / National Commission:

a.   Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. I (998) CPJ 13 (NC),  wherein National Commission is held that issue of fraud and cheating requires elaborate evidence and it should be dealt by Civil Court.   Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. &Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan 2023 Livelaw (SC) 251 also dealt with the same issue.

b.       Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  Vs. Munimahesh Patel   2006) 7 SCC 655, wherein it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that proceedings before the National Commission are summary in nature.

7.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission and other relevant records.  State Commission in its order has observed as follows:

“18   Thus an amount of Rs.4,87,850/- was paid by the Complainant to the first opposite party.  In this context it is pertinent to note that both the demand drafts had been drawn in favour of first opposite party and they were encashed…..”

x x x

“20.  It is not the case of the first opposite party that the Complainant had drawn the demand drafts in favour of the terminated employee of the first opposite party.  It is also clear that Phani Chowdhary was in the service of the first opposite party by the time the demand drafts were handed over to the first opposite party by the complainant.  The bank statement would render support to the contention of the complainant that both the demand drafts were encashed.

21.     The third opposite party  had issued reply to the notice of the complainant informing him that it had sanctioned a loan which was disbursed in favour of the first opposite party on 6.2.2008 through DD No.219609 dated 5.2.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank for Rs.2,87,850/- for purchase of Maruti Swift VDI.  Thus, the reply of the third opposite party would further strengthen the case of the complainant that the demand draft for Rs.2,87,850/ issued by the third opposite party was drawn on in favour of the first opposite party.  As such the payment of 80%  of the sale consideration of the car was made by the complainant to the first opposite party.” 

                   x x x

“24.  The opposite parties no.1 and 2 collecting 80% of the consideration for the purpose of sale of Maruti Swift VDI to the complainant and not taking steps either to receive the balance sale consideration and their failure to complete documentation as also deliver the vehicle to complete the sale consideration or to refund the amount received from the complainant would constitute deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2.  The fate of criminal cases would not have any bearing on the relief claimed by the complainant for refund of the amount paid by him to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 or purchase of the vehicle.”

8.       During the hearing also the Petitioner admitted that both the demand drafts were in the name of the Petitioner and were credited in the account of Petitioner.  The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings.  As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held 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.”   We do not find any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld.  Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.

9.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.