1.      The present Revision Petition s filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 05.01.2018, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 700/ 2016 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and Affirmed the Order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (“District Forum”) in CC No.388 of 2014.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. is referred to Petitioners/OP-2&3.  Shailender Kumar is denoted as Respondent No.1/Complainant and Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd. is referred to as Respondent No.2/OP1.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Pulse Diesel car from Renault Company, relying on assurances of warranty and best services. However, shortly after purchase, the car started having operational issues and eventually stopped working. Despite efforts to have the car repaired under warranty, the company refused, citing alleged poor maintenance by the Complainant as cause of the engine failure. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of the company, as they were within the extended warranty period and entitled to have the car repaired at no cost. Despite legal notices and requests for repair, the company failed to respond or address the issue. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking repair or replacement of the engine, reimbursement of expenses already incurred, and compensation for the mental tension, harassment, and financial losses suffered as a result of the company's actions. 

4.      In reply, OP-1 raised several legal objections with respect to the maintainability of the complaint and argued that the complaint involves intricate questions of facts and law that cannot be adequately addressed in summary jurisdiction. It was contended further that the Complainant failed to adhere to the service schedule, which included specific intervals for servicing. They asserted that he did not bring the car for first servicing and presented it for second service beyond the prescribed schedule. He failed to report for third servicing at the designated interval. Moreover, the car had met with an accident and that the Complainant's maintenance of the car was substandard, evidenced by their use of non-genuine oil filters and engine oil. OPs emphasized that the Complainant's actions violated the terms and conditions of the warranty, thereby disqualifying them from seeking any claim related to the vehicle in question.

5.      In reply, the Petitioners vehemently denied the allegations and raised preliminary objections, asserting that the complaint was false, malicious, and vexatious. There was no deficiency in service on their part. OP-2 & 3 provided a detailed account of the vehicle's history and stated that it was brought to service station on 11.03.2014 with starting problems after completing mileage of 49786 KM. Upon inspection, it was revealed that the engine had seized. OPs asserted that the car had not been brought for scheduled servicing at 40000 KMs, and non-genuine oil filters and coolant were used and the air filter was clogged. He was negligent in maintaining the car. As per OP-2 & 3 the repair work was conducted outside the authorized Renault network, using non-genuine parts, leading to denial of warranty support, which was informed to him. On the merits, OP-2 & 3 refuted all material allegations and reiterated their preliminary objections, and requested the dismissal of the complaint.

6.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 02.06.2016, allowed the complaint and directed the OPs as follows:

 “38.  For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with cost/compensation of Rs.5,000/- against Opposite Parties No.2 &3.  The complaint against opposite party No.1 stands dismissed.  The opposite parties No.2&3 are directed to pay Rs.58,735/- to the complainant.

39.       The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of Rs.58,735/- will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.”          

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP-2 & 3 filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 05.01.2018 dismissed the Appeal with following observations:

“8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9. Counsel for the appellant argued that engine of the car was seized due to poor maintenance of the car. The services of the car was not done as per service schedule given by the company. First service of the car was not got done & Second service of the car was got done at 11050 Kms. Which was to be done at 10000 Kms. When the vehicle was brought in workshop on 16-03-2014, the reading of odometer was noted as 49786 kms. As per vehicle history it was found that the vehicle was not brought for scheduled servicing due at 40000 Kms. It was found that the oil filter in the vehicle and the coolant used was not genuine. Also repair work had been carried out in a workshop outside the Renault authorized network. The Renault new vehicle warranty does not cover damage resulting from poor vehicle maintenance.

10. During arguments counsel for appellant was asked to place the report of the Engineer who inspected the vehicle when it was brought in the workshop on 16-03-2014. Further enquired if any estimate for the repairs has been prepared by the Company. There is no report that seizing of Engine was only due to not adhering to the scheduled service. The Counsel could not show these documents. We are of the opinion that the car was under extended warranty period and even if there is no warranty applicable, the ops must have prepared a detailed report as well as estimate of needed repairs and ask the complainant to pay for the repairs. Whereas the company / Op flately refused to carryout the repairs due to poor maintenance of the car. On refusal by op, the complainant got repaired the car from outside workshop at Hanumangarh at his cost. This amounts to deficiency in service by appellant/OP. We find no fault with the order of the District Forum.

11. Sequel to above we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limini and the order of the District Forum is upheld.

12. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the concerned District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days, from the dispatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court for release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.”

8.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP-2 & 3 reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the complainant has not brought the vehicle periodically as per service warranty card and he was brought only after 49,786 KMs for servicing of the vehicle. He further contended that the impugned orders of the learned State Commission and the District Forum are contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and the law laid down by this Commission in plethora of judgments and it is for the Complainant to establish the claim for the replacement of the engine supported by the opinion of an expert automobile that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. He further asserted that the complainant had not used the genuine coolant and filter.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr., Civil Appeal No.574 of 2021 decided by the Supreme Court.

(ii) MC Chacko v State Bank of Travancore AIR 1970 SC 504

(iii) Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and Anr., II (1994) CPJ 21 (SC);

(iv) Baljeet Kaur vs. Divine Motors and Ors., MANU/CF/0616/2017;

(v) Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobile and Ors., MANU/CF/0653/2012;

(vi) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand and ors., MANU/CF/0218/2009;

(vii) R. Baskar Vs.D.N. Udani and Ors., (2006) CPJ 257;

(viii) Bharati Knitting Vs. DHL Courier, (1996) 4 SCC 704;

(ix) Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2019 15 SCC 131;

(x) PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. (SICAL) v. The Board of Trustees (Board), 2021 SCC Online SC 508.

9.      On the other hand, both the Respondents have not appeared despite service and they were proceeded ex-parte.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for Petitioner/OP2&3.

11.    The learned District Forum issued a detailed order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined vide a well-reasoned order that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order.

12.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

13.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs SBI & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 432/2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed:-

“9. It is needless to say 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. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

14.    Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

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. 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.

15.    In view of the foregoing deliberations, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the learned State Commission dated 05.01.2018 in First Appeal No.700/2016. The instant Revision Petition No. 523 of 2018 is, therefore, Dismissed.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.