This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Maruti Suzuki India Limited against the order dated 26.04.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA 962/2017 & 966/2017.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had purchased Maruti A Star car from the opposite party/respondent No.2 and the car gave sound from the front portion of the car.  A consumer complaint bearing No.1271/2015 was filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur Second, Jaipur, (in short the ‘District Forum’).  The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties.  However, the District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order on 20.07.2017:-

“On the basis of above deliberation complaint of the complainant is allowed and ordered that respondents should jointly and severally get repair the car of the complainant fully free of cost within one month from today.  Respondents and replaced the defects necessary parts and also pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation and cost of complaint of Rs.5000/- total Rs.55000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand) within one month from today, failing which respondents have to pay interest @9% on this amount from today till the date of realization.”

3.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an Appeal No.966 of 2017 before the State Commission. Similarly, the complainant also filed preferred appeal bearing No.962 of 2017 before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed both the appeals vide its order dated 26.04.2018.

 4.     Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record.

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is mainly aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, wherein the District Forum has given a finding that the defect of sound in front portion of the car was observed in about 40,000 cars after inspection by the Company and when they could not remove the defects, the Company stopped the production of A Star cars.  On the basis of this averment by the complainant in the complaint, District Forum has presumed similar defect in this car that the sound was coming from the front portion of the car.  Hence, the order was passed to repair the vehicle free of cost and to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation.  Learned counsel stated that the State Commission has also accepted this averment of the complainant and has rejected the appeal of the petitioner herein. 

7.      Learned counsel further informed that the petitioner has already complied with the order dated 20.07.2017 of the District Forum to the full satisfaction of the complainant and the petitioner is only aggrieved with the observation of the District Forum in respect of the defect of sound coming from front portion of car in 40,000 cars and consequent stoppage of production of these cars.

8.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.  Clearly, the District Forum has allowed the complaint and asked the opposite parties to repair the car and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  The District Forum has not clearly observed whether this was a manufacturing defect or other defect which can be repaired as the District Forum has passed order for its repair.  It goes on to show that it was not a manufacturing defect and the defect was removable by proper repairs.  Both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact and fact cannot be reassessed at the stage of revision petition by this Commission after two fora below have examined the issue and given concurrent finding. This view is based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in   Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“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 that 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 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 finding of two fora.”

9.      The above view also gets support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the following:

“23.  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.”

10.    From the above two authoritative judgements, it is clear that this Commission cannot reassess the facts at the stage of revision petition when the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts. Thus, I do not find any force in the revision petition so far as the final judgment/decree of the District Forum as confirmed by the State Commission is concerned.

11.   The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner herein is mainly aggrieved by the observation of the District Forum and the State Commission and not by the operational order as the petitioner has already complied with the order passed by the District Forum. The question relating to defect of sound coming from front portion of car in 40,000 cars was a matter, which was alleged by the complainant and was responded to by the opposite party/petitioner herein.  In this regard the District forum has observed the following:-

“10.   It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has clearly mentioned in para No.13 that her car was A-Star model and most of the cars of this model had defects of coming sound from front part and in break system and therefore Company has tried to repair about 40000 vehicles but when they could not get success then they have to close the manufacture.  Respondent had no proper evidence to rebut this fact.  Respondent has given rigmarole reply that this fact should prove by the complainant.  In case this was not the situation then Respondent No.1 could give clear reply and affidavit that no such defect is found in the vehicles of A-star model or due to this defect manufacture of the A-star model is not closed.  Any such proof is not available on their record. But by not rebutting the same it does meant that there were complaints of such sound in these vehicles and therefore vehicle were recalled and this model was closed for further.  Therefore this facts proves that there were such complaint in the vehicle of complainant.”

12.    The State Commission has observed the following in this regard:-

“10.   It may also be noted that it is the specific case of the complainant that 40000 vehicles of the same model were recalled due to defective break system and noise in front part of the vehicle and this fact has been evasively denied by the Maruti Suzuki but no record has been submitted to show that vehicles were not rec-called or there was no such complaint about the same make.  Even the affidavit of Pushpender Rathore the Territory Service Manager of Maruti Suzuki has not stated a word in his affidavit about rec-calling of 40000 vehicles which clearly shows that vehicle was defective and inspite of various efforts it could be not repaired.  Hence, the claim has rightly been allowed.”

13.    Moreover, the appeal is maintainable only against a decree or order but not against any observation made in the body of the judgement.  Similarly, in my view, this principle also applies in case of revision petition.  From this angle also, the present revision petition is not maintainable against the observation made by the fora below with regard to 40,000 cars.

14.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition that calls for any interference from this Commission and accordingly RP No.1861-1862 of 2018 stand dismissed at the admission stage.