The Court confirmed that the National Commission does not have the authority to intervene when both lower forums' concurrent findings are supported by valid reasons, emphasizing jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner / Opposite Party against order dated 16.5.2016 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 83 of 2016, whereby the Appeal was dismissed.

2. The Case of the Complainant is that on 8.8.2015, at 10.15 a.m. the Complainant booked two vehicles, Ford Ikon CH03A5625 and Ford Eco Sport CH01AX 8884 for service. The Opposite Party assured the Complainant that the service would be completed on time and asked him to wait in the waiting room. However, at 12:45 pm, when the Complainant enquired about the service status, he came to know that no work had even started and the vehicles were parked on the roadside. When the Complainant confronted the staff, he was told that only Ikon could be serviced and it would be ready by 4 pm. The Eco Sport, however, would be delivered the next day. The Complainant alleged that he is a retired Professor of History and pursuing research and the Opposite Party wasted the time of the Complainant and caused harassment to him. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 2,000 as litigation cost.

3. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party. It was stated that during the service process, they were obligated to thoroughly inspect the vehicles and rectify any defects. There were already eight vehicles present at the service station and the Complainant's vehicles were ninth in line. The official of the Opposite Party promptly prepared the job card and inspected the vehicles. The job card for the Eco Sport was prepared at 11:00 am, and the job card for the Ikon was prepared at 11:20 am. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the vehicles would be delivered to them after completion of service, around 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm respectively. Instead of waiting for his turn, the Complainant caused disturbance at about 12:45 pm and took the vehicles with him.

4. The District Forum, after hearing the Parties and perusing the record, vide order dated 20.1.2016, allowed the Complaint with the following direction:
"In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant. Hence, the present Complaint of the Complainant is allowed against Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed as under:
(a) To pay an amount of Rs. 15,000 to the Complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service:
(b) To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 7,000
The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in Sub-para [b] above, from the date of filing of this Complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.
The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned."

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of District Forum dated 20.1.2016, the Petitioner / Opposite Party filed First Appeal No. 83 of 2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 16.5.2016, concurred with the finding of the District Forum with the slight modification to the effect that compensation was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 10,000. The order for litigation expenses of Rs. 7,000 was upheld.

6. Not satisfied by the impugned order dated 16.5.2016, Petitioner / Opposite Party has filed the Present Revision Petition with the following prayer:
"(a) All