The NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying lower commissions' orders without proper evidence, emphasizing that factual disputes should not be resolved in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petition No.18563/2024 is filed seeking to quash the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [NCDRC] in Revision Petition No.1614/2022. The Writ Petition No.18692/2024 is filed seeking to quash the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the NCDRC in Revision Petition No.1529/2022.

2. The petitioners are authorized dealers of Maruti Suzuki India Limited [Maruti].

3. The private respondent had purchased a Maruti Celerio VDI Car bearing Registration No.KA.19.MF.7715 from the outlet of the petitioners-Company. A complaint was filed by the private respondent before the District Consumer Redressal Commission [District Commission] Mangaluru, D.K. District bearing Consumer Complaint No.235/2016, alleging that from the first day of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant noticed uneven rough sound in the engine which was informed to the petitioners-Company, but it had failed to detect the same.

4. The vehicle was purchased on 11.11.2015. It was alleged in the complaint, that on 24.04.2016 when the 2^nd respondent tried to start the vehicle unsuccessfully, he called the petitioners for assistance. The mechanics were sent, who could not discover the fault and the same was towed to the workshop. The allegation in the complaint was that the vehicle was handled roughly which caused further damage and the vehicle did not start. The complainant was not informed of the exact fault in the vehicle and a job card was issued with an estimated cost of Rs.25,000/- and labour charge of Rs.10,000/-. The case was that despite the vehicle being under warranty, the estimated cost of repair of the vehicle was submitted and the complainant was insisted upon to sign the job card. Subsequent unilateral alteration in the job card by the petitioners was also alleged. It was stated that in the job card it was mentioned later that the engine oil was mixed with water.

5. Petitioners denied the allegations made by the complainant before the District Commission and the stand taken was that the complaint was not covered under the terms of the warranty. All relevant documents were filed by the petitioners.

6. The District Commission by an order dated 02.01.2019 directed the petitioners and Maruti to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.6,29,669/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till payment, a further sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of complaint.

7. The petitioners filed an Appeal No.176/2019 before the State Commission against the order aforesaid of the District Commission. Maruti filed a separate Appeal No.309/2019 before the State Commission. The State Commission by its common order dated 31.05.2022 dismissed both the appeals confirmed the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the District Commission.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the petitioners filed a Revision Petition before the NCDRC bearing Revision No.1529/2022 and Maruti filed a Revision Petition No.1614/2022.

9. By a common order dated 03.06.2024, the NCDRC allowed the Revision Petition No.1614/2022 filed by Maruti and exonerated it from the liability of payment of compensation and modified the order of the District Commission in Revision Petition No.1529/2022 holding that the two petitioners are jointly and severally responsible for the payment as ordered by the District Commission.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that neither an expert was appointed nor any such opinion was taken which is the mandate of Section 38 of the Co