1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 10.01.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (‘State Commission’) in FA No.764 of 2016. In this Appeal, the Petitioner/OP1 appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.06 of 2014.

2.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Verna Car Registration No.HR-01AD-1221 from the Respondent No.2/OP-2 on 17.08.2011 for Rs.9,44,000/-. After running for 1,795 KM some defects were noticed. He brought the car to OP-2 on 28.09.2011 and some repairs were undertaken. But still the defects could not be rectified. He brought his car to OP-2 on 05.05.2012, 21.11.2012, 29.11.2012, 10.12.2012 and 02.01.2013 but no avail. Lastly, on 16.08.2013 it stopped on the way and had to be towed to OP-2. He requested them to replace the vehicle but the OPs did not pay any heed despite legal notice dated 25.11.2013. Being aggrieved, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

4.      In reply, Petitioner/OP-1 stated that the car was sold by OP-2 to the complainant in perfect condition. Free services were also provided to him at the relevant times, but no defect was noticed in the car. Denying his allegations the complaint was sought to be dismissed. In reply, Respondent/OP-2 pleaded that the car was running smoothly. As and when it was brought to workshop of OP-2, it was checked and repaired to the Complainant’s satisfaction.

5.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 17.06.2016, allowed the complaint and directed the OPs as follows:

 “(i) To replace the engine of the car in question and handover the car to the complainant in perfectly working condition to his entire satisfaction and if it is not possible due to any reason whatsoever, then refund the cost of the car in question to the complainant as per sale invoice alongwith simple interest @8% per annum w.e.f. the date of institution of complaint to till date.

(ii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony etc. to the complainant.

(iii) Also to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation costs including Advocate’s fee etc.

 Further the award/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period otherwise all the awarded amounts shall fetch simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default and the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act for implementation of the said order.”

6.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP-1 filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 10.01.2017 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:

“7. Indisputably, the car was purchased on 17th August, 2011 and the Extended Warranty was up to 16th August, 2014. Thus, the complaint was within limitation and the contention raised in this respect is repelled.

8. Secondly, the defect being noticed in the car, the complainant brought the car to the opposite party No.2 several times, that is, on 29.09.2011, 21.11.2012, 29.11.2012, 07.12.2012, 10.12.2012, 02.01.2013, 27.04.2013, 16.08.2013, 01.10.2013, 10.08.2013 and 16.08.2013 but the defect could not be rectified. From Job-Sheet dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure C-6) it is established that engine of the car was overheating. Besides, the photographs (Annexure C-15-17) showing the opposite parties to have dismantled the engine for rectifying the defect and yet remained unable to do so. In view of this, it is abundantly clear that the car sold to the complainant was defective and the defect could not be rectified.

9. Hon'ble National Commission in Tata Motors Limited versus Navin Nishchal & Anr 2012 (3) CPJ 718 (NC) held:-

11. It cannot even be the case of the petitioner that a buyer of a new car would repeatedly go to the workshops of the dealer/manufacturer with flimsy complaints because doing so entails expenditure of considerable effort, time and money to the buyer. Moreover, the fact that the engine assembly had to be changed altogether is a clear admission of the reality in this case, viz., there was some manufacturing defect in the engine assembly leading to excessive consumption of engine oil and emission of smoke. However, as rightly contended by Mr. Narain, the liability of the petitioner under the warranty ended with replacement of the defective engine assembly and, even with the finding that the District Forum arrived at, the direction to replace the car was not warranted in view of the law on the subject as settled by the Apex Court (as in the case already cited above). On the other hand, there is no reason to hold that the complainant/respondent 1 did not suffer physical harassment and mental agony as well as expenditure of time and money in the process of getting the defects in his new car attended to repeatedly. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant/ respondent 1 ought to be suitably compensated."

10.    In view of the facts and the legal position enunciated above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. The opposite parties shall replace the engine of the car within 30 days and thereafter two engineers of the Opposite Parties would certify the replacement of engine and vehicle to be fit and free from any defect.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.”

7.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP-1 reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that in compliance of the order dated 16.06.2023, Mr. Jitender Khera Manager-Field Support Service to facilitate the inspection of the vehicle in question, the odometer reading of the vehicle were found to be 72,285 KM as on 23.06.2023. 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 total replacement of the new vehicle supported by the opinion of an expert automobile that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. He further asserted that had there been any defect in the car, the car could not have covered such an extensive mileage. He argued that the vehicle was inspected by Mr. Navneet Gupta, Automobile Engineering Dept. Govt. Polytechnic Ambala City at Ambala, who carried out only a visual inspection and without employing any testing equipment or facilities and contrary to the prescribed procedure, a report dated 27.07.2015 was filed inter alia stating that the alleged problem in the vehicle “may be due to defective clutch system or clutch system is not working to its intended design function, it seems to be manufacturing defect”. He sought the impugned orders of the lower fora be set aside.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Classic Automobiles Vs. Laila Nand Misra & Anr., (2010) CPJ 235 (NC);

(ii) Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N. Prasad, MANU/ CF/0076/2010;

(iii) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and Ors, (1999)7SCC 280;

(iv) R.Baskar V. DN Udani, R.P. No.132 of 1999, decided on 03.10.2006 by NCDRC;

(v) Ishwarlal Amarnai Vs. Hero Puch & Anr III(2011)CPJ132 (NC)

8.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Complainant argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission. He further submitted that an expert namely Mr. Navneet Gupta, Engineer from the Polytechnic College, Ambala was appointed by the learned District Forum to inspect the said vehicle and he was opined that the vehicle was driven 25 kms only which is a short distance and the vehicle does not show overheating engine for a short drive. Otherwise also in case the coolant has been freshly changed the vehicle may not overheat in 25 kms run. The most important fact is that the defect of overheating has been established many times by various job cards and it has come in the findings of the servicing agency also where service advisor has written engine overheat in the problem narration column. The existence of defect is proved by the Act of the agency/ dealer vide RO/job card dated 23.09.2013 where they have changed many parts radiator assembly, cooler assembly-engine oil, heater core, head sub-assembly-cylinder, gasket cylinder head, thermostat assembly and in the problem narration column “engine oil missing with coolant was written by service advisor. He further submitted that Petitioner/OP moved an application challenging this Inspection Report which was dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2016 by the District Forum and that order was never challenged by the Petitioner. He sought dismissal of the Revision Petition with costs.

9.      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 Counsels for both the parties.

10.    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. This was primarily because on the grounds that an expert report dated 27.07.2015 by Mr. Navneet Gupta, Engineer from the Polytechnic College, Ambala established ‘manufacturing defect’.  This order is now under challenge at the revision stage.

11.    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.

12.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“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. .....”

13.    Similarly, in a recent order 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.

14.    It is a matter of record that the vehicle was purchased on 17.08.2011. Within short span, the car had to be taken several times to the service centre for repairs and the nature of repairs undertaken reasonably established the trend of repetitive problems being faced. It is also undisputed that in the course of past about 12 years, as on 23.06.2023, the car was used only for 72,285 KM. Without doubt, this is too little a usage in normal course and, apparently, the main reason is its serviceability and the Complainant’s lack of confidence in the vehicle, which he purchased from OP-1 paying Rs.9,44,000/-. The learned District Forum considered appropriate to have the vehicle inspected by and engineer who had brought out the issues with respect to the engine condition. Thus, the Petitioner was directed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 17.06,2016 to replace the engine of the car in question and it handover to the Complainant in perfectly working condition to his entire satisfaction. If it is not possible due to any reason whatsoever, then refund the cost of the car in question to the complainant as per sale invoice along with simple interest @6% per annum w.e.f. the date of institution of complaint to till date. Only engine replacement was directed to resolve the main issue which is critical. Instead of replacing the engine as directed, the Petitioner chose to appeal against the order of the learned District Forum before the learned State Commission, which vide order dated 10.01.2017 reiterated the order of the District Forum for replacement of the engine. The Petitioner chose to file this Revision Petition reiterating same facts and that the vehicle was used for 72285 KM as on 23.06.2023 and, therefore, there is no manufacturing defect.

15.    The special feature of the dispute in question is it pertains to a car. It is a matter of common knowledge that every motor vehicle has prescribed shelf life as per law and thereafter, it cannot be used. In the present case, the car was purchased on 17.08.2011. As on date, over 13 years in its usable life have already lapsed. Even if the engine is replaced today, its utilization is for a very limited time and the Complainant will not be able to benefit from the investment he made. This situation emerged due to non-compliance of the order of the District forum on 17.06.2016 to replace the engine of the car.

16.    In view of the foregoing deliberations, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed and the order of the learned District Forum and State Commission are modified as below:

I.  The Petitioner/Opposite Party-1 is directed to pay the Complainant the cost of the vehicle as per the sale invoice along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of complete payment, within a period of one month. In the event of delay beyond one month, the interest rate applicable shall be 9% per annum for such extended period.

II. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded to Complainant on account of harassment, mental agony etc. and Rs.10,000/- awarded as costs are set aside.

17.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.