Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Force Motors Limited – Petitioner
versus
Ravindran and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.3067 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 22/01/2016 in Appeal No. 395/2013 of the State Commission Kerala)
Decided on 29.2.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vijay Valsan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Nemo

IMPORTANT POINT
Well reasoned orders – Both the State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the issues raised by Petitioner.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Defective Vehicle – Commissioner noted several significant points regarding the vehicle in question. Firstly, OP-1 had discontinued production of the specific model, rendering spare parts unavailable. Secondly, there were pending cases concerning defects in the same model before the District Forum. Additionally, the expert Commissioner identified defects in the vehicle, notably oil leakage through gaskets and breathers of the engine, suggesting decompression weakening likely caused by blow-by gases through piston rings. This issue exacerbated poor performance, resulting in increased fuel consumption – Therefore, due to the vehicle’s inoperable condition, the Commissioner could not assess its fuel efficiency. Despite these mechanical issues, upon physical examination, other components of the vehicle were found to be operational. The mileage issue can be attributed to a manufacturing defect, as mentioned by the Commissioner in the report – Also, both the State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the issues raised by Petitioner, held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. [Paras 10 to 15].
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 22.01.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 395/2013 in which order dated 18.03.2013, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 144/2011 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Appellant before the State Commission and OP-1 before the District Forum; the Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as complainant) was Respondent-1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent-2 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2) was Respondent-2 before the State Commission and OP-2 before the District Forum. For sake of convenience, parties may also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s). Due to absence of Respondents despite service, they were proceeded ex-parte. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 17.12.2021 (Petitioner) and 22.10.2019 & 16.12.2021 (Respondent-1/Complainant). Delay in filing the RP is condoned after considering the reasons stated in IA/1046/2017.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—

The complainant is the registered owner of a 2006 model Autorickshaw manufactured by the Petitioner/OP-1, purchased for Rs.1,68,000/- on 23.09.2006. The Respondent-1/complaint alleges that the OP-1 promised a mileage of 35 KM per litre for the vehicle, but it failed to deliver the promised mileage. The primary issue noted was heavy fuel consumption. Despite repeated attempts to rectify the problem through the dealer (Respondent-2/OP-2), the issue persisted. Even during the warranty period, the vehicle became unserviceable, leading to significant financial loss and mental distress for the complainant. The complainant incurred repair costs, and the vehicle’s unsuitability for use prevented loan repayment to the State Bank of India. Furthermore, it is understood that the sale of the vehicle was halted due to manufacturing defects. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought various reliefs through the consumer forum.

5. Vide Order dated 18.03.2013, in the CC no. 144/2011 the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 84,000/- as the price of the vehicle and pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 18.03.2013 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 22.01.2016 in FA No. 395/2013 has upheld the order of District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

7. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 22.01.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) The lower forums have gravely erred in disregarding the fact that the complaint filed by Respondent-1/Complainant is time-barred due to the principle of limitation. The vehicle in question was purchased on 23.09.2006, and after nearly four and a half years of usage, Complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging a manufacturing defect on 26.08.2011. Proceeding with such a complaint is a clear violation of legal principles, and the lower forums have erred in allowing it to proceed. The lower forums erred by failing to recognize that complainant does not meet the criteria to be considered a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Given that complainant had been utilizing the vehicle for commercial purposes for over four years, the complai