In, Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr, SC has held that, to deliver the defective car against the new car was also not permissible. However, not to deliver the new car despite the full sale consideration paid and/or to deliver the defective car can be said to be unfair trade practice.
Facts
That the appellant herein – original complainant purchased a Car. That the booked car was not delivered to the complainant. However, the delivery of the car was given to the complainant after a period of one year of deposit of the total amount, which as such was an old one and in fact was a used car. It was also having various other defects. The car which was delivered was used by the dealer as “DemoTest Drive Vehicle”. The original complainant lodged the FIR with the police. However, the matter could not be settled and therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent no.1 – dealer to take back the delivered vehicle and in lieu thereof to deliver a new car to the complainant against the previously deposited amount. The District Forum specifically gave a finding that “DemoTest Drive Vehicle”, was given to appellant. The order passed by the District Forum came to be confirmed by the State Commission. However, by the impugned judgment and order and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has set aside the findings of facts recorded by the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the car delivered was used car. However, National Commission modified the orders and directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to the complainant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the NCDRC -National Commission, the complainant has preferred the present appeal.
Contention Made
Appellant: On appreciation of evidence on record, both, the District Forum as well as the State Commission gave specific findings that the car delivered was used car. Further, that the National Commission while interfering with the findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission has exercised the powers beyond the scope and ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Respondent: That the cogent reasons have been given by the National Commission interfering with the findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission that the car delivered was a used car.
Court Observation
The Division Bench of Supreme Court while dealing with the contention of Appellant observed that, to deliver the defective car against the new car was also not permissible. However, not to deliver the new car despite the full sale consideration paid and/or to deliver the defective car can be said to be unfair trade practice. On the other hand, SC observed, 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.
Court Judgment
The SC while allowing the present appeal has held that, In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission are hereby restored.
Case: Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5928 of 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
Decided on: 8th September, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
