KAMAL & COMPANY THROUGH MANAGER vs HIMANSHU SHARMA, & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.9.2015 of the State Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur passed in First Appeal No.966/2012.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum II, Jaipur alleging that he had booked Tata Safari vehicle with petitioner herein by paying Rs.50,000/-. The vehicle was purchased on loan which was being arranged by respondent no.2, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. It is the case of the complainant that he paid Rs.2.5 lakhs and the vehicle was delivered to the respondent no.1/complainant. However, the loan was not sanctioned by respondent no.2 as the age of respondent no.1 was only 20 years and respondent no.2 was supposed to give the loan only at the age of 21 years and more. Later on, the complainant has alleged that after some time the vehicle was re-possessed by the OP in the month of May, 2008. The respondent no.1/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the OPs. The District Forum after considering the submissions and material on record, allowed the complaint vide order dated 21.6.2012 as under:

"Therefore allowing complaint of the complainant against the respondents, respondent no.1 is directed that within a period of two months from the date of order to repay Rs.50,000/- + Rs.2,50,000/- totaling to rs.3,00,000/- with 18% p.a. interest from the date of deposition to the date of payment and also insurance amount Rs.28,000/- too with 18% p.a. interest from the date of deposition to the date of payment and also respondents are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as charged process fee, Rs.5,000/- for frequent visits, totaling to Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost to the complainant."

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner herein preferred an Appeal bearing no.966/2012 before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum vide its order dated 14.9.2015 as follows:-

"Therefore keeping in view of entire facts of the case, we would like to modify the judgment of the District Forum to the extent that complainant is not entitled to refund of Rs.28,000/- on account of insurance premium + Rs.5,000/- on account of process charges + Rs.5,000/- on account of repeated visiting + Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony awarded by the learned District Forum in favour of the complainant and deem it appropriate to quash the above. Because according to the complainant himself, he has used/driven the car for 4-5 months. We also deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Costs are upheld."

Hence, the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum had ordered refund of Rs.3 lakhs with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant alongwith insurance charges of Rs.28,000/-. The State Commission has confirmed the order of the District Forum with regard to refund of Rs.3 lakhs. However, the State Commission has reduced the interest rate from 18% to 12% and also set aside the order relating to the insurance amount etc. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the whole story has been cooked up by the complainant and the vehicle was never delivered to the complainant, neither Rs.2.5 lakhs was paid by the complainant. No transaction of sale could be completed as no loan was sanctioned. The learned counsel stated that respondent no.1/complainant has not been able to submit any receipt of payment of Rs.2.5 lakhs which has been alleged to have been paid in cash. When the vehicle was not delivered, there is no question of any re-possession of the vehicle. The learned counsel further stated that it is true that insurance was issued against the vehicle and temporary registration number was also sent to the RTO for allotment to the vehicle, however, this was only done to save the time as the purchase was more or less final, though it could not be ultimately materialized as the loan could not be sanctioned.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.1/complainant stated that Rs.50,000/- was paid at the time of booking and then loan formalities were completed and Rs.2.5 lakhs was further paid and the delivery of the vehicle was given by the petitioner. Later on, the vehicle was re-possessed by the OPs and it was informed that loan could not be sanctioned to the complainant as he was less than 21 years of age. It is not correct that the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant and not repossessed later on by the OPs. To prove his case, the learned counsel further stated that the complainant had paid Rs.28,000/- to the petitioner for insurance of the vehicle and the insurance was effected by the insurance company and that is why the State Commission has set aside the order of District Forum for refund of Rs.28,000/-. The learned counsel also pointed out towards communication made by the petitioner herein to the RTO concerned for allotment of temporary registration number. These two formalities are only effected when the vehicle is actually sold and delivery given. The learned counsel emphasized that these two facts are sufficient to prove that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. No dealer will deliver the vehicle without receiving sufficient payment and in this case, the total amount of Rs.3 lakhs was paid to the petitioner and then only delivery was made.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 stated that he has nothing to say in the matter as no order has been passed against respondent no.2 by the State Commission.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. First of all, both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts that the complainant has given Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner herein. The powers under the revisional jurisdiction are very limited as observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the following two cases:

(1) In Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 ; wherein following has been observed:

"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."

(2) In Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, the following has been observed:

"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

From the above two authoritative judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the facts cannot be re-assessed by this Commission in the revision petition when there is concurrent finding of facts given by both the fora below. Beyond this, no legal issue is involved in the matter. Moreover, the issuance of the insurance of the vehicle and issuance of the temporary registration number go on to prove that the vehicle was sold and delivered. A perusal of the written statement as well as the appeal filed by the petitioner reveals that no specific claim was made that Rs.2.5 lakhs were not given by the complainant. In these circumstances, the State Commission has rightly decided the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. Sufficient relief has already been given to the petitioner.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, R.P. No. 3130 of 2015 is dismissed. No order as to cost for this revision petition.