NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/183/2019 (Against the Order dated 14th November 2018 in Appeal No. 882/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West bengal)

WITH NC/IA/5042/2022 (DIRECTIONS)

NC/IA/16751/2024 (EARLY HEARING)

NC/IA/16424/2019 (DIRECTIONS)

M/S. K.B. MOTORS PVT. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS MANAGER, 63C, BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD, P.S. BALLYGUNGE , KOLKATA-700019 , WEST BENGAL , .......Petitioner(s)

Versus RANJIT MUKHERJEE & ANR.

PRESENT ADDRESS - C/O. MONU MUKHERJEE 38, DEODAR RAHMAN ROAD, P.S. LAKE , KOLKATA-700045 , WEST BENGAL , RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD., PRESENT ADDRESS - C/O. RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD., LAMALA MILLS COMPOUND, TRADE WORLD, B - WING, 7TH FLOOR, S.B. MARG LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400013, MAHARASHTRA. , , , .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

MR. ALOK MUKHOPADHYAY, ADVOCATE (VC)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR. SAHID UDDIN AHMAD, ADVOCATE (VC)

DATED: 11/02/2026

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in First Appeal No. A/882/2017, vide which, the Appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1/ Complainant was allowed, and the Order of the District Forum dismissing the Complaint was set-aside.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant/ Respondent No. 1, intending to purchase a new vehicle, exchanged his old Tata Sumo (Reg. No. WB04F-1334) with the Opposite Party No. 1/Petitioner on 06.01.2014. An invoice dated 11.01.2014 was issued for a Tata Venture GX model at a price of Rs. 5,65,921/-, inclusive of taxes. The Opposite Party No. 1, by letter dated 24.01.2014, informed Reliance Capital Ltd./ Opposite Party No. 2/ Respondent No. 2 that the exchange value of the old car was Rs. 86,000/-, and the said amount was adjusted through the loan disbursement. Thereafter, a loan of Rs. 4,80,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant on 31.01.2014, repayable in 47 EMIs of Rs. 13,330/- each.

3. The vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 05.02.2014 along with the Insurance cover note, key, and tool kit. An additional payment of Rs. 25,000/- was made by the Complainant on the same date. However, discrepancies were soon noticed inter alia that the Insurance documentation (issued through Reliance Insurance and Bharti AXA) reflected inconsistent information regarding the model, manufacturing date, and Insured value. Additionally, the exchange value of the old vehicle was shown as Rs. 40,000/- instead of Rs. 86,000/-. Upon use, the Complainant discovered that the delivered car was not new but had already run 9,000 km.

Moreover, contrary to representations, the seating capacity was 6+1 instead of 7+1.

4. Despite repeated assurances by the Opposite Party No. 1 to address the issue, no remedial action was taken. A letter requesting replacement of the vehicle was refused by the Opposite Party No. 1 on 24.02.2014, prompting the Complainant to forward the same to Tata Motors Ltd. The latter too failed to take any steps. Follow-up emails were sent, and in a reply dated 07.03.2014, the Opposite Party No. 1 admitted that the vehicle had run 9,000 km. The Complainant, expressing inability to continue paying EMIs under these circumstances, wrote to the Respondent No. 2 requesting a temporary suspension of repayment obligations. Aggrieved with the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, he filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Unit – I, Kolkata.

5. The District Forum vide its Order dated 14.07.2017 dismissed the Complaint. The Complainant/ Respondent No. 1 then filed his Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order allowed it with the following directions:

“the Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 shall, wi