1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 03.06.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatisgarh, Raipur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 23/2016 in which order dated 06.01.2016, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 519/2014 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA/23/2016 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC no. 519/2014.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent.  Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 20.11.2023. Delay in filing the RP is condoned after considering the reasons stated in the condonation of delay application.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-

The complainant/Respondent entered into an agreement with the Petitioner/OP company for the purchase of a Renault Duster. The OP agreed to exchange the complainant's Wagon R car for Rs.1,10,000/-, inclusive of an exchange bonus of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant secured financing for the remaining amount from Central Bank of India, Raipur. The OP, after stating the total value of the Renault Duster as Rs.12,73,346/-, delivered the Renault Model R.X.P.L. 85 P.S. to the complainant on 25.11.2013. The OP had already arranged for insurance and registration of the vehicle before delivery. Allegedly, the OP failed to register the vehicle within a reasonable time. After approximately two months, the OP informed the complainant that they would not exchange the Wagon R car for Rs.1,10,000/-, claiming its value to be only around Rs.70,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. This refusal, combined with the non-registration of the delivered vehicle in the Transport Office, was considered a deficiency in service, constituting unfair business practices. Despite receiving the total amount, the OP allegedly pressured the complainant to deposit an additional Rs.40,000/- on 21.03.2014. Even after this payment, the OP did not provide the services as per the contract note, contributing further to the alleged deficiency in service. The complainant made multiple attempts to have the vehicle registered, but the OP did not fulfill this obligation. Despite receiving a legal notice on 02.03.2014 from the complainant's advocate, urging the OP to register the vehicle, the OP allegedly continued to neglect this duty. Consequently, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking redress for the alleged deformities in service provided by the OP.

5.       Vide Order dated 06.01.2016, in the CC no. 519/2014 the
District Forum has partially allowed the complaint, directing the OPs to complete the registration process of the vehicle sold to the complainant. The OPs were mandated to bear the registration charges, delay charges, and all expenses related to the registration of the vehicle. Additionally, the District Forum directed the OP to compensate the complainant with an amount of Rs. 50,000/-.

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 06.01.2016 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 03.06.2016 in FA No. 23/2016 has upheld the District Forum’s order and dismissed the appeal.

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 03.06.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The order of the State Commission is legally flawed, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The State Commission failed to recognize that the Respondent/Complainant breached the contract note dated 25.11.2013 by not delivering the Wagon R in good running condition, as stipulated under the exchange scheme. The Complainant opted for a Renault Duster RXL 85 in exchange for the Wagon R, with an assessed amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- and an additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- promised by the Petitioner/OP to the Complainant. The Complainant provided an undertaking to deliver the Wagon R in "Good Running Condition" as per the exchange scheme, and as security, a Post-Dated Cheque (PDC) was issued, subject to bank clearance if the old used car (exchanged) was not received in good running condition by 30.12.2013.

2. The State Commission overlooked the fact that the Post-Dated Cheque No. 0315557 dated 01.12.2014, amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/-, was deposited as a security deposit and was subsequently returned to the Complainant upon request. Subsequently, the Complainant submitted another cheque of Rs. 40,000/- for insurance of the Renault Duster. However, the said second cheque bounced when presented on 07.03.2014. The State Commission made an error in concluding that the OP committed a deficiency of service. In reality, the Complainant violated crucial terms and conditions of the exchange offer scheme by failing to hand over the Wagon R car in good running condition. Consequently, neither the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- nor the additional Rs. 30,000/- has been returned to the OP. The PDC of Rs. 1,10,000/- given as a security deposit was returned to the Complainant upon request. Therefore, the OP did not commit any deficiency of service.

3. The State Commission neglected to consider that on 21.03.2014, the Complainant returned a part of the exchange bonus, i.e., Rs. 40,000/- in cash, and requested time to return the balance amount, which remains unpaid to date. The Consumer Complaint has been filed with malafide intentions to deceive the OP. The State Commission failed to delve into the entire transaction to ascertain the truth, clarify the position, and reveal the correct facts, thus avoiding a miscarriage of justice. The State Commission did not appropriately appreciate the evidence, as the Complainant has not fulfilled their obligation to hand over the Wagon R car as per the contract note dated 25.11.2013.

8.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

1.  The counsel for Petitioner/OP contends that the impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary, and unreasonable, lacking any application of mind, and is therefore subject to being set aside. The State Commission have failed to recognize that the Complainant did not comply with the contract note dated 25.11.2013. The Complainant did not hand over the Wagon R, against which an exchange bonus offers of Rs. 30,000/- was provided. Additionally, the post-dated cheque (PDC) of Rs. 1,10,000/- was taken back by the Complainant, and a cheque of Rs. 40,000/- was handed over.

2.  The counsel further argued that the OP has demonstrated good faith by accepting the payment of Rs. 40,000/- from the Complainant in lieu of the bounced cheque of Rs. 40,000/- on 07.03.2014. The counsel asserted that the observations made by the lower fora were incorrect, illegal, and not in accordance with the law. The Complainant has failed to comply with the terms and agreement, and the OP is portrayed as being burdened with costs and losses, amounting to a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of law.

3. The authorized representative representing the respondent/complainant, stated that the complainant, with the consent of the Petitioner/OP, obtained a loan of Rs.11,00,000/- from the Central Bank of India, Raipur branch, to purchase a vehicle. It is claimed that the Petitioner agreed to exchange the complainant's old vehicle for Rs.1,10,000/- as part of the transaction for selling the Renault Duster. Following an evaluation of the old vehicle's worth, the Petitioner delivered the Renault Duster R.X.L. to the complainant on 25.11.2013. However, the Petitioner/OP failed to register the Renault Duster at the registration office after the delivery. When contacted by the complainant approximately two months later, the Petitioner allegedly refused to accept the old Wagon-R Car in exchange for Rs.1,10,000/-, despite previously valuing it at Rs.1,10,000/-. This conduct is considered by the respondent/complainant to be a violation of service standards and unfair trade practice, leading to mental and physical distress for the complainant. The complainant/respondent contends that the order issued by both the fora is lawful and regular.

   9.   We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the fora below against the Petitioner herein. Both the State Commission and District Forum have considered at length the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the parties and after duly considering the evidence placed before it have concluded that Petitioner/OP is guilty of deficiency in service. Both State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the various issues raised by both sides. Extract of relevant paras of State Commission is reproduced below:-

“11. ….From the above, it is proven that the appellant/non-applicant has received Rs.12,38,521/- from the respondent/complainant. The said document is issued by the Appellant/Non-Applicant and bears the signature of Shri Anand Rathore, General Manager of the Appellant/Non-Applicant. There has been no denial of the said document. Document No.3 presented by the respondent/complainant, which is the delivery challan, and document No.4, which is the gate pass, both prepared by the appellant/non-applicant, prove that the delivery of the said Duster vehicle was made by the applicant/non-applicant to the respondent/complainant, dated 25.11.2013.

12. Document No.5, which is 'Money Receipt' No.2116 dated 21.03.2014 of the Appellant/non-applicant institution, has been presented by the respondent/complainant. The said receipt is for Rs.40,000/- in cash, which is part payment for the said Duster vehicle of the respondent/complainant. The price of the respondent/complainant's old vehicle Wagon R was initially fixed at Rs.1,10,000/- by the Appellant/Non-Applicant. However, later, the price of the said vehicle by the Appellant/Non-Applicant was found to be Rs.70,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. From what is stated, it appears that the difference amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been received by the appellant/non-applicant from the respondent/complainant. Paragraph 7 of the sent legal notice dated 02.05.2014 also shows the fact that the old vehicle was valued at Rs. 1,10,000/- by the Appellant/Non-Applicant, but later it was increased from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-, indicating the exchange value. The appellant/non-applicant has not responded to the said notice. Before delivery of the Duster vehicle to the respondent/complainant, the appellant/non-applicant had valued the old Wagon R vehicle at Rs. 1,10,000/-. However, after the delivery of the new vehicle Duster, the valuation of the old vehicle increased from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. Additionally, Rs.83,100/- has been clearly received on account of registration. Therefore, R.T.O. registration of the vehicle should have been immediately undertaken by the appellant/non-applicant under the prevailing system. After getting the registration done, the documents related to the registration had to be handed over to the respondent/complainant. The Appellant/Applicant adhered to the insurance add-on insurance shown in the contract/deal in the contract note, and the insurance shown in the delivery challan by New India Assurance Co. However, it did not discharge its responsibilities regarding registration. The Appellant/Non-applicant did not fulfill this responsibility either immediately or even after receiving legal notice. This reflects the conduct of the Appellant/Non-Applicant, which amounts to deficiency in service as well as professional misconduct.

13. It is also clear from the perusal of the documents presented in the case that the value of the old Wagon R of the respondent/complainant was assessed by the appellant/non-applicant at Rs.1,10,000/-, which was to be made and given. The issue regarding valuation is found to be proved because the Appellant/Non-Applicant has taken Security Check 031557 in respect of the old Wagon R vehicle, which is found to be returned to the Respondent/Complainant, and cash of Rs.40,000/- has been received from the Respondent/Complainant. The acceptance of the applicant/non-applicant is certified. The said act falls in the category of deficiency in service. The District Forum has properly deliberated and concluded its order, and the order given regarding the registration of the vehicle is justified. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- given by the District Forum for mental distress is also appropriate.”

We are in agreement with the findings of State Commission and District Forum.

10.    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. "

11.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8 September, 2022, held that:-

“13. 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.

14. 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. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

12.  We find no Illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the RP is dismissed.

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