The National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is limited and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence or overturning concurrent factual findings of lower forums, provided those findings are supported by cogent evidence like an expert report regarding manufacturing defects.

ORDER

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The relevant facts of the present complaint are that Sukhdev Singh/ the respondent no. 1 in revision petitions bearing no 1741 and 1742/the complainant in the complaint (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) had purchased SCV Magic Passenger Carrying vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the vehicle”) on 20.11.2013 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,68,892/- vide invoice no. 631 and sale certificate both dated 20.11.2013 to earn livelihood from M/s Speed Motors/ the petitioner in revision petition no 1741 and the respondent no 2 in revision petition no 1742/the opposite party no. 1 in the complaint (hereinafter referred to as ‘the opposite party no.1’). The opposite party no.1 is commercial vehicles dealer and engaged in selling various products of the M/s Tata Motors Limited/the petitioner in revision petition no 1742 and the respondent no 2 in revision petition no. 1741/the opposite party no. 2 in the complaint (hereinafter referred to as “the opposite party no. 2). The complainant for purchasing the vehicle availed loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from Tata Motor Finance Limited vide loan account no. 50001433420 and customer ID no. 2002331221 which was to be repaid in 47 equal monthly instalments each amounting to Rs. 10,431/- commencing from 15.12.2013 till 15.10.2017. The opposite party no 1 also issued temporary registration certificate for the period from 20.11.2013 to 19.12.2013 and Form 22 and the complainant also applied for issuance of permanent registration certificate. The vehicle was insured for the period from 20.11.2013 to 19.11.2014 from ICIC Lombard General Insurance Company Limited on payment of premium of Rs.17,916/-. The vehicle developed problem in engine and suddenly stopped to start. The complainant on 06.12.2013 had taken the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party no 1 and explained the problem. The complainant was asked to leave the vehicle there for checking and informed on 19.12.2013 to collect the vehicle after being repaired. The complainant also paid Rs. 260/- vide invoice dated 19.12.2013 against job card dated 14.12.2013 and was assured about repair of defects and smooth working of the engine. The vehicle on 13.07.2014 suddenly developed smoke in the engine and went off when it was plying from village Jaula to Jawaharpur. The complainant called the motor mechanic who asked the complainant to get the vehicle repaired from the workshop of the opposite party no 1 being under warranty period. The complainant left the vehicle at the workshop of the opposite party no 1 on 14.07.2014 and was informed about the estimated repair charges of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant was asked for deposition of Rs. 15,000/- as advance of repair charges otherwise need to deposit parking charge @ Rs. 500/- per day but the complainant brought the vehicle back to his native village. The complainant could only pay seven instalments towards repayment of loan amount and thereafter could not discharge financial liabilities. The financer threatened the complainant to seize the vehicle as per agreement which due to defects was lying in the house of the complainant. The complainant due to defects approached the opposite party no 1 several times for replacement of the vehicle and also sent a legal notice dated 06.01.2015 to the opposite party no 1. The complainant suffered mental pain and agony due to the acts of the opposite party no 1 and alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no 1 by delivering defective vehicle to him. The complainant being aggrieved filed present consume