(ORAL)

1.      The present revision petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 17.12.2008 of the State Commission in Appeal No. 2232/2008 of the petitioner. Vide its impugned Order, the State Commission had dismissed the two appeals, one filed by the petitioner and the other by Jeewan Motors Pvt. Ltd., i.e. O.P. No. 2 in the complaint before the District Forum.

2.      It is an admitted fact that despite service of the notice of the complaint, the petitioner did not appear before the District Forum and did not dispute the contentions of the complainant in his complaint. Thereby, the petitioner had admitted the contentions in the complaint. It was only the O.P. No. 2 i.e. Jeewan Motors Pvt. Ltd. who had contested the complaint and led evidences. The complainant i.e. the respondent no. 1 had examined four witnesses namely Krishan Mohan Singh, Susheel Purohit, Subash Rao and Johny Khan. Out of these, Mr. Subhash Rao was in the business of repair of Maruti Vehicles and he, in his evidence, had clearly deposed that the kind of defects that were found in the subject vehicle of the complainant were of the nature of manufacturing defects and could not be rectified by repair. There is no counter evidence shown to be on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Johny Khan, another witness was also mechanic by profession for the last 13 years and he also deposed in favour of the complainant. Mr. Ghanshyam Porwal, another witness working as a Customer Care Manager with Jeewan Motors Pvt. Ltd. had deposed that due to change of the vehicle into LPG system, the claim of the complainant was not covered under warranty. He, however, has made no statement regarding the nature of defect found to exist in the vehicle. Mr. Yogesh Kamwe, another witness of Jeewan Motors Pvt. Ltd. confirmed that the vehicle was developing defects of and on and those were rectified. He only gave his assumptions and presumptions and conjectures for the development of the defects shown to have been found in the subject vehicle at that time. It was after perusing evidences led by the complainant as well as Jeewan Motors Pvt. Ltd. and after examining the documents C - 1 to 24 that the District Forum concluded that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle.

3.      Before the State Commission in appeal, the plea taken was whenever any defect had appeared in the vehicle, it was removed to the satisfaction of the complainant. It was also contended that the steering gear box was replaced. After re-appreciating and re-assessing the evidence on record and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State Commission vide impugned Order, dismissed both the appeals including the appeal of the petitioner, maintaining that there were several evidences on record to prove that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Before this Commission, the same plea has been taken that there were no manufacturing defects. It is argued that the vehicle had been erratically run by the complainant and that he had already run the vehicle for more than 19000 kms in nine months and that is the reason that the defect in the vehicle had developed. He had not used the vehicle as per the instructions of the user manual. It is also argued that accepting the State Commission’s Order, a letter dated 16.02.2009 had also been written to the complainant to produce the vehicle for rectification of the defects but he did not produce the vehicle.

4.      I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel.

5.      It is a settled proposition of law that this Commission has a very limited jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is not required to re-appreciate or reassess the evidences on record and substitute its own opinion on the facts of the case.  Specifically so if here are concurrent findings on the facts. Unless it is shown that the evidence are perverse or the fora below have exceeded its jurisdiction or has passed an Order without a jurisdiction, this Commission can’t interfere in the concurrent findings of the fora below under Section 21(b) of the Act. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269”, which is as under:

“23. 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”.

6.      Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

“17.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them 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.”   

7.      In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further reiterated this principle. Hon’ble Court in T.Ramalingeswara Rao  (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, has held as under:

“12.    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 perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

8.      In the present case, as stated above, the petitioner has not put any evidence before the District Forum and thereby has not disputed the facts in the complaint.

9.      The fora below have based their findings on the evidences led by the respondent - complainant and the respondent no. 2 i.e. Jeewan Motors Pvt. Ltd. and the documents produced before it and reached to the conclusion. Learned counsel has failed to bring to my notice any piece of evidence which shows that the concurrent findings of the fora below as regards the deficiency in service, are perverse. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

10.       This revision petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.