Summary
The complainant booked a new Tata Victa car and paid the full price to the dealer. A year later he received an older 2005-model car that had been used as the dealer's demo and test-drive vehicle and had defects. The District Forum, affirmed by the State Commission, directed the dealer to take back the car and deliver a new one against the amount deposited. In revision, the National Commission held it not proved that the car was used, but finding it defective, substituted Rs. 1 lakh compensation. The Supreme Court restored the consumer fora's orders. Revisional power under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is confined to jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity by the State Commission and does not extend to reversing concurrent findings of fact. Delivering a used or defective car after full payment for a new one is an unfair trade practice.
Issues
- Whether the National Commission, in revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could set aside concurrent findings of fact that the car delivered was a used demo vehicle
- Whether delivery of a used or defective car against full payment for a new car is an unfair trade practice entitling the consumer to a replacement
Provisions considered
- Section 21(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Revisional jurisdiction lies only where the State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. It does not extend to reappraising concurrent findings of fact. (¶ 7.1)
Held
- The National Commission's revisional powers under Section 21(b) are very limited, and it has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission reached on appreciation of evidence. By reversing the finding that the car was a used demo vehicle, it acted beyond the scope of its revisional jurisdiction. (¶ 7.1)
- Once a new car was booked and the full price paid, the dealer was bound to deliver a new, non-defective car. Delivering a used demo vehicle, or even a defective car as the National Commission itself found, is an unfair trade practice and dishonest, so the direction to replace the car was fully justified. (¶¶ 7, 7.2)
Result
Appeal allowed. The National Commission's order was set aside and the District Forum's order directing delivery of a new car, as confirmed by the State Commission, restored. The dealer was to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh, half to the appellant and half to the Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee.