IN THE judgement of the case –Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Another, delivered on September 8, 2022, Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, at the Supreme Court, have made it amply clear that in exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) 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.

The appellant herein is the original complainant in the case. He had purchased a Tata Victa GX TC Car. He deposited the booking amount with the dealer against which a receipt was issued. Thereafter, the complainant deposited a further sum of Rs 5,30,000/- towards purchase amount of the said vehicle. The booked car was not delivered to the complainant till May 26,2006. 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 old one and was of 2005 model and in fact was a used car. It was also having various other defects.

According to the original complainant, the car was old and it had already run up to 10,000 kms. The car, which was delivered was used by the dealer as “Demo-Test 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 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 Forum also awarded a sum of Rs 5,000/- towards the mental agony besides a sum of Rs 2,500/- towards litigation costs. The Forum gave a specifically gave a finding that the delivered car was used car and was being used as “Demo-Test Drive Vehicle.

The State Commission affirmed the order passed by the District Forum. However, by the impugned judgment and order and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the National set aside the findings of facts recorded by the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the car delivered was a used car. However, having given the findings that the complainant got a defective car, the National Commission modified the orders passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission and directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs one lakh to be paid to the complainant.

Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved with the order passed by the NCDRC in revision, the complainant had filed this appeal. ‘It is required to be noted that the complainant had booked a new car and as such paid the entire sale consideration. Therefore, when the customer booked a new car and paid the sale consideration of a new car, the dealer was supposed to and /or bound to deliver the new car. Instead the dealer delivered the used car which was used as “Demo –Test Drive Vehicle”.

Even as per the findings recorded by the National Commission the car which was delivered was a defective car. Even to deliver defective car against the new car was also not permissible. Not to deliver the new car despite payment of entire sale consideration and/or to deliver 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 Dealer to replace the delivered car and to deliver a new car.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record, the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of fact recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

It is needed to be kept in mind that while passing the impugned judgement and order the National Commission was exercising revisional jurisdiction vested under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 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 or 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, 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 judgement 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.

Both, the District Forum, as well as the State Commission specifically gave the findings that the vehicle delivered was used car, which was used as “Demo-Test Drive Vehicle”. Even the National Commission has also observed and held that the vehicle delivered was defective and therefore, even the National Commission has directed that the compensation in the sum of Rs one lakh be paid to the complainant for the delivery of the defective car.

Non delivery of a new car can be said to be an unfair trade practice and even it can said to be dishonesty on the part of the said dealer and against the morality and ethics.

Once the new car was booked and the full sale consideration was paid, a duty was cast upon the dealer to deliver a new car which is not defective and therefore, the District Forum as well as the State Commission were justified in directing the dealer to give delivery of a new car.

The Supreme Court has set aside the impugned judgement and order of January 4, 2016 passed by the National Commission in Revision and restored the judgements and orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission respectively on April 29, 2011 and September 19, 2014, with direction to the respondent-dealer to comply with the order passed by the District Forum with Rs one lakh costs to be deposited with the Registry of the court in six weeks. Out of this amount half will be payable to the appellant towards litigation costs and remaining amount to be transferred to the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) at the court at New Delhi.