The division judge bench of Justice M.R Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the hon’ble supreme court in the case of Rajiv Shukla Vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr held that 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.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant bought a car and delivered the amount to the dealer- respondent no. 1. Despite a further sum of Rs.5,30,000/ towards the purchase amount of the said vehicle. That the booked car was not delivered to the complainant. After that when the delivery of the car was made after one year and it was an old car which also consists of defects. The appellant alleged that the car delivered was used by the dealer as “DemoTest Drive Vehicle”. Further, the appellant lodged an FIR with the police. However, the matter could not be settled and therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. Furthermore, the decision of the district forum came to be confirmed by the state commission. However, by the impugned judgment and order, and while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission overturned the District Forum's and State Commission's findings of facts that the car delivered was a used car. However, having determined that the complainant received a defective car, the National Commission modified the District Forum's orders, which were confirmed by the State Commission, and directed that compensation in the amount of Rs.1 lakh be paid to the complainant.
The appellant after not being satisfied with the judgment passed by the National Commission has preferred the present appeal.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the National Commission has committed a grave error in reversing the fact that the car delivered was not a used car. It is also submitted that the findings of the fact recorded by the state commission and district forum which were on appreciation of entire evidence could not have been set aside and interfered with by the national commission in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and the national commission has exercised the power beyond the scope and ambit of revisional jurisdiction under the section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
At last, it was submitted that the non-delivery of a new car even after the full payment of the sale consideration would only result in unfair trade practices and dishonesty. It is submitted that therefore the District Forum and the State Commission were justified in directing respondent no.1 – the dealer to deliver a new car against the previously deposited amount.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 has supported the decision made by the national commission. It is contended that on reappreciating the whole evidence on record, the national commission has rightly observed that no evidence has been led to show that the car delivered was an old car.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The apex court stated that even as per the findings recorded by the National Commission the car which was delivered was a defective car. Even delivering the defective car to the new car was also not permissible. Not delivering the new car despite the full sale consideration paid and/or delivering the defective car can be said to be unfair trade practice. Therefore, as such the District Forum and the State Commission were absolutely justified in directing the respondent no.1 – dealer to replace the delivered car and to deliver a new car.
The national commission should not interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the District Forum and the state commission in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 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. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Thereafter, the impugned judgment of the National Commission is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment which was passed by the district forum which was confirmed by the state commission was hereby restored. The present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent with costs which are quantified at Rs.1 lakh to be deposited by Respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from today with the Registry of this Court.
CASE NAME- Rajiv Shukla Vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5928 of 2022
DATED- 08.09.22
CORUM- Justice M.R Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
Read JUdgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
