Rajiv Shukla Versus Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr.

Rajiv Shukla Versus Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

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

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. BS8084   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. 

7.2. As observed hereinabove, 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

“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

8. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the

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.