RAJIV SHUKLA vs. GOLD RUSH SALES AND SERVICES LTD .

1 REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5928 of 2022 Rajiv Shukla   … Appellant  Versus Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr.        … Respondents J U D G M E N T M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the National Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   New   Delhi   (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) in Revision Petition Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SNEHA Date: 2022.09.08 16:35:49 IST Reason: No.2082   of   2015   by   which   the   National   Commission   in 2 exercise of revisional jurisdiction has set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum as well as the State Commission,   the   original   complainant   has   preferred   the present appeal. 2. That   the   appellant   herein   –   original   complainant purchased a Tata Victa GX TC Car.  He deposited the booking amount with the dealer – M/s. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. – respondent no.1 herein against which a receipt was issued.   That thereafter the complainant deposited a further sum of Rs.5,30,000/­ towards purchase amount of the said vehicle.     That   the   booked   car   was   not   delivered   to   the complainant till 26.05.2006.  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 an old one and was of 2005 model and in fact was a used car.   It was also having various other defects.   That according to the original complainant   the   car   was   old   and   it   had   already   run   upto 10,000 kms.   The car which was delivered was used by the dealer as “Demo­Test Drive Vehicle”.  The original complainant 3 lodged the FIR with the police.  However, the matter could not be settled and therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers: "i) pass the order  to opposite party to replace aforesaid delivered   used   car   Tata   Victa   GX   TC   Model   no.   2005, Chasis No. 446370702­938757, Registration No. U.P. BS­ 8084   and   delivered   new   car/vehicle   to   the   applicant/ consumer.   ii) pass an order for refund all such amounts with interest to   which   the   opposite   parties   has   taken   to   the applicant/consumer.  iii) pass an order against the opposite parties to pay five, compensation, damages, expenditure, claims and all such amounts   with   due   interest   to   the   applicant/   consumer accordingly as calculated and claimed in the paras 24 of the application.  iv) to pass such order appropriate or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just in the interest of justice and as well as according to the circumstances of the case". 2.1 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 also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/­ towards the mental agony besides   a   sum   of   Rs.2500/­   towards   litigation   costs.     The District Forum specifically gave a finding that the delivered car 4 was   used   car   and   was   being   used   as  “Demo­Test   Drive Vehicle”.   2.2 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, having given the findings that the complainant got a defective car, the National Commission modified the orders passed   by   the   District   Forum   confirmed   by   the   State Commission and directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to the complainant. 2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   NCDRC   ­   National Commission,   the   complainant   has   preferred   the   present appeal. 5 3. Shri   Praveen   Agrawal,   learned   counsel   appearing   on behalf of the appellant – original complainant has vehemently submitted that the National Commission has materially erred in   upsetting   the   findings   of   facts   recorded   by   the   District Forum and the State Commission that the car delivered was a used car.  It is submitted that 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.  It is submitted that therefore the findings of facts recorded   by   the   District  Forum   and   the   State   Commission which were on appreciation of entire evidence could not have been   set   aside   and/or   interfered   with   by   the   National Commission   in   exercise   of   the   revisional   jurisdiction.   It   is submitted   that   therefore   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. 6 3.1 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   for   the appellant  that  even  otherwise  the   findings  recorded  by the National Commission on the delivered car is contrary to the findings on record.   It is submitted that considering the test drive/demo   slip   of   the   delivered   car   having   Chassis   No. 939353, it was established and proved that the delivered car was used as demo/test drive car. 3.2 It is submitted that when the complainant paid the full sale consideration for a new car, the duty was cast upon the dealer   to   supply   the   new   car   which   was   booked.     It   is submitted that non­supply of the new car which was booked even on payment of the sale consideration would tantamount to dishonesty and unfair trade practice.  It is submitted that therefore the District Forum and the State Commission were justified in directing the respondent no.1 – dealer to deliver a new car against the previously deposited amount. 7 3.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and restore the judgment and order passed by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission. 4. Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf   of   respondent   no.1   has   supported   the   impugned judgment and order passed by the National Commission. 4.1 It is submitted 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. 4.2 It   is   submitted   that   on   reappreciation   of   the   entire 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.   It is submitted that therefore no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the National Commission. 8 5. Shri   Sidharth   Bhatnagar,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing on behalf of the Tata Motors Limited has submitted that   as   such   Respondent   no.2   –   Tata   Motors   Limited   is   a proforma respondent as no order has been passed against the respondent no.2 – Tata Motors Limited. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein ­ original complainant booked a new car and as such paid   the   entire   sale   consideration.     Therefore,   when   the complainant – 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 respondent no.1 – dealer delivered the used car which was used as “Demo­Test Drive   Vehicle”.     Even   as   per   the   findings   recorded   by   the National   Commission   the   car   which   was   delivered   was   a defective car.  Even to deliver the defective car against the new car   was   also   not   permissible.     Not   to   deliver   the   new   car 9 despite the full sale consideration paid 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 respondent no.1 – dealer to replace the delivered car and to deliver a new car. 7.1 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 facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.   It is required to be noted that while passing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   National Commission was exercising the 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 10 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 11 jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. 

well as the State Commission specifically gave the findings that the vehicle delivered was used car which was used as “Demo­Test Drive Vehicle”.  As observed hereinabove 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.1 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 be said to be dishonesty on the part of the dealer and against the morality and ethics. As observed hereinabove, 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 therefore the District Forum as well as the State Commission were justified in directing the dealer to give delivery of a new car. 12

impugned judgment and order dated   04.01.2016   passed by the  National Commission in Revision Petition No.2082 of 2015 is hereby  quashed   and  set  aside.  The   judgment  and  order passed   by   the   District   Forum   dated   29.04.2011   passed   in Consumer   Case   No.397   of   2007   confirmed   by   the   State Commission   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   19.09.2014   in Appeal No.910 of 2011 are hereby restored.  The Respondent no.1 is hereby directed to comply with the judgment and order passed   by   the   District   Forum.     The   present   appeal   is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent with costs which is 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.     On   such   deposit   Rs.50,000/­   be   paid   to   the appellant   herein   towards   the   costs/litigation   cost   etc.   and Rs.50,000/­ be transferred to the Mediation and Conciliation 13 Project   Committee   (MCPC),   Supreme   Court   of   India,   New Delhi. …………………………………J.             (M. R. SHAH) …………………………………J.     (KRISHNA MURARI) New Delhi,  September 8, 2022.