RAJIV SHUKLA versus GOLD RUSH SALES AND SERVICES LTD. & ANR

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 08-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
213
RAJIV SHUKLA
v.
GOLD RUSH SALES AND SERVICES LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 8, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21 – Appellant booked a
new car, paid the entire sale consideration – Respondent no.1-dealer
delivered a used car which was used as “Demo-Test Drive Vehicle”
– National Commission setting aside the concurrent findings
recorded by the District Forum and State Commission, modified the
orders and directed compensation of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to the
appellant – On appeal, held: Once the new car was booked and
full sale consideration was paid, a duty was cast upon the dealer to
deliver a new car which is not defective – To deliver the defective
car against the new car was not permissible – District Forum as
well as the State Commission on appreciation of evidence on record
concurrently found that the car delivered was used car – Such
findings of facts were not required to be interfered by the National
Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction – It acted beyond
the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred u/s.21(b)
– Further, even as per the findings recorded by National Commission,
the car which was delivered was a defective car and therefore even
itself directed that the compensation of Rs.1 lakh be paid to the
complainant for the delivery of the defective car – Not to deliver
the new car despite the full sale consideration paid and/or to deliver
the defective car is unfair trade practice – District Forum and the
State Commission justified in directing the respondent no.1 to replace
the delivered car and to deliver a new car – Impugned order set
aside – Order passed by the District Forum confirmed by the State
Commission restored – Costs of Rs.1 lakh to be paid by respondent
no.1.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21 – Revisional jurisdiction
– Powers of National Commission – Exercise of – Held: 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
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 213
213
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
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.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5928
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2016 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision
Petition No. 2082 of 2015.
Praveen Agrawal, Gautam Kumar Laha, Venkata Krishna
Kunduru, Mrs. Kiran Mahato, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sidharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Abhinav Ramkrishna, Ms. Anjali
Chauhan, Ms. Samina Thakur, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia Nigam,
Aditya Sidhra, M/s Karanjawala & Co., Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.