JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 01.12.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1341 of 2013 whereby the Appeal of the Petitioner against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.1257 of 2019 was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) had purchased a Maruti Wagon R (LPG) car on 19.10.2007 for approximately a sum of ₹4 Lakhs from automobiles dealer.  Since according to the Complainant, the car was giving problem just after running                   1610 kms, he had to take the car repeatedly to the workshop.  As per the Complainant, the car had been taken to the service station for 27 times within two years of the purchase of the car, till the date of filing of the Complaint in 2009.  The Complainant had placed on record the job cards.  He had alleged that his car had defect of wobbling from the start and the tyres got damaged due to this defect and several parts of the vehicle were replaced during the warranty and free service period  but the problem persisted.  He had contended that quality checks of the vehicle had not been done and the vehicle was suffering with manufacturing defect.

3.      The Petitioner filed its reply before the District Forum.  It was contended that the vehicle was attended and parts were replaced during free service.  It was submitted that there was proper quality checks before delivery of the car.  The Petitioner had also filed in evidence the details of all repairs done from 1610 kms to 43,645 kms from 18.12.2007 till 18.05.2010 in a tabular form in order to prove that they had taken proper action and that the vehicle had been attended and repaired. 

4.        Parties led their evidences before the District Forum and the District Forum held as under:

    “We have carefully considered the rival submissions.  We find that the complainant has been faced with problems in car from beginning due to its imperfect fittings or other similar lack of services and quality check up before delivery of car.  Though he could not drive full satisfaction as a new buyer and the repairs have gone for beyond normal maintenance in last 5 years.  These facts show that complainant’s car was defective in assembly line/lack of supervision or car. Keeping in view the fact that new car is 5 years old, it cannot be replaced.  We award a compensation of ₹2 lakhs to complainant for the loss of enjoyment and satisfaction expected from a new car and for imperfect checking of car.  We allow litigation expenses of ₹25,000/-.”

5.      This order was impugned by the Petitioner before the State Commission on several grounds.  It had taken up the plea that the Complainant was not a consumer since he had purchased the vehicle for commercial purposes.  It was also contended that the Complaint was bad for non-joinder of parties since the dealer from where the vehicle was purchased was not made a party by the Complainant before the District Forum.  It was also contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that they had not committed any act amounting to deficiency in service.

6.      The State Commission duly considered the contentions of the Petitioner and re-appreciated and re-assessed the evidences on record and held that there was  no evidence on record except the bald statement of the Petitioner and rejected the contention of the Appellant that complainant was not a consumer.  As regards the contention that the dealer from whom the vehicle was purchased was not made a party, the State Commission had relied on the findings of this Commission in the case of “Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Ors. (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)” and dismissed the said contention of the Petitioner.  On merit, regarding deficiency in service, the State Commission has held as under:

“10. The final question for consideration before us is whether the Appellant provided deficient goods to the Respondent, making it liable within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11. The perusal of the material evidence available on record reflects that the defect of wobbling of tyres in the car was there even before the first service of the Vehicle was done by the Appellant, when the vehicle had just run for around 1610 kilometres. The said defect is clearly a manufacturing defect given the fact that the Vehicle had run only for a few hundred kilometre and started showing such problems despite the Appellant having changed the defective parts. The District Forum had rightly observed

12. On the basis of settled law and aforesaid discussion, we upheld the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the district forum be complied with before 29.12.2021.”

7.      This order is impugned before me.  It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no evidence on record to reach to the conclusion regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner or that the vehicle was defective as                   no expert opinion has been obtained by the District Forum as is required to be done under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is also argued that the order of the State Commission is not a speaking order and that the State Commission has also failed to consider that the defective parts of the car had been replaced free of cost and also the fact that the Complainant had got some fitment done in the vehicle which was unapproved fitment as is clear from the job cards etc. which were also part of the record.  It is also argued that grant of compensation @ ₹2 Lakhs is towards higher side.  Reliance is also placed on the findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra & Others, 2006 4 SCC 644”.

8.      I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the file.

9.      Vide the present Revision Petition, the Petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.  It is a settled proposition of law that under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of pronouncements, this Commission has limited revisional jurisdiction.  In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, this Commission is not authorised to re-appreciate and re-assess the evidences on record and give its own finding on the facts, more so when the findings of the Foras below on the facts are concurrent.  The only jurisdiction this Commission has is to see whether the findings of the Foras below are perverse or whether the Foras below have failed to exercise its jurisdiction or have exceeded its jurisdiction.  A finding can be said to be perverse when it is based on no evidence or where material piece of evidence on record has not been considered.  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” has held 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”.

10.    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.”   

11.    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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.”

12.    In the present case, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that there was no evidence on record to reach to the conclusion by the Foras below that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the Complainant.  It is argued that the Foras below ought to have called for an expert’s opinion in terms of Section 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  From the perusal of provision of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, it is apparent that the District Forum is required to call for an expert opinion only when it is of opinion that the defect in the goods would not be determined wither proper analysis or test of the goods.  In the present case, as is clear from the record and undisputed fact reflected from the job cards that repeatedly defects were being developed in the vehicle purchased by the Complainant and the vehicle was repeatedly sent for the repairs, and the fact that these documents have been produced by the Petitioner itself before the District Forum, conclusively shows that there was inherent defect in the vehicle which could not be removed despite the vehicle being taken to the service station after being run only for 1610 km and the Complainant had to run the said vehicle with the defect which the Petitioner was unable to remove even after repairing it for 27 times during the period 18.12.2007 to 18.05.2010. If the Petitioner was of the view that expert opinion was needed in this case nothing had stopped him from moving an appropriate application for expert view regarding inherent defect in the vehicle.  It therefore cannot be said that this is a case of no evidence and thus the findings are perverse.  The findings are based on cogent evidences on record produced by the Petitioner itself.

13.    Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also argued that the defect would have occurred because the Complainant had got an unapproved fitment done in the vehicle.  He has drawn my attention to job card dated 25.11.2007 which is placed on page No.131.  There is no doubt that there is a column in this document which reads as “unapproved fitment”.  However, there are no details given regarding the nature of unapproved fitment.  Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.  Therefore, even the learned Counsel has failed to show by preponderance of evidence that the Complainant had got any unapproved fitment done in the vehicle.  Also this point was not argued by the Petitioner before any Foras below and has been raised for the first time before this Commission.

14.    The next argument of learned Counsel is that the impugned order is not a speaking order.  The argument does not impress this Commission at all.  The State Commission has duly dealt with the issue in dispute and given its findings on the basis of the evidences on record.  The Foras below are not required to give a thesis.  It is a summary procedure and the Foras below on the basis of evidences on record give their findings.

15.    Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on the findings in the case of Sushil Kumar Gabgotra’s case (supra). The findings in that case are given on entirely different set of fact.  In that case, there was a direction for replacement of the car while in this case there is no direction of replacement of the car.  The Petitioner was only required to pay compensation for the harassment and mental agony and loss of enjoyment and satisfaction suffered by the Complainant.  The compensation awarded is justifiable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein from the facts it is apparent that since the very beginning, even before the first service of the vehicle was due, the Complainant had to take the vehicle to the service station for the defect which had developed and despite the fact that the vehicle was taken for 27 times for repairs and number of parts of the vehicle were replaced, yet the problem subsisted.

16.    In view of the above discussions, I found no perversity in the impugned order.  The present Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.