Author- Anuska Maurya, Vivekananda Insitute Of Professional Studies (VIPS), GGSIPU

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Consumer Protection Act is one of the primary legislation to protect consumer rights in India. People can file complaints and grievances with the commission to get compensation or justice. The Consumer Protection Act, hereinafter CPA, was implemented in 1986 but it was amended in 2019 and hence we have CPA,2019. Under this legislation, consumers can submit complaints to consumer forums without paying court fees or requiring legal assistance. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operates as a quasi-judicial body and has state and district commissions under it and it works at the national level and has the power to oversee and supervise the lower forums. The Commission’s head is a sitting or a retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or a sitting or a retired Chief Justice of an Hon’ble High Court.

Section 21 of the CPA,1986 deals with the jurisdiction of the national commission and section 21(b) deals with the Revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which states  “to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested.”[i] Furthermore, this case deals with unfair trade practices mostly done by suppliers and can be of many types. This is given in section 2(r) of the CPA,1986 according to the act unfair trade practice means “a trade practice which, to promote the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method practice”[ii]. Moreover, the unfair trade and its meaning were further clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of this case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant in the case complained to the respondent, M/s. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. Alleging that the appellant had already deposited the booking amount for the purchase of a Tata Victa GX TC car and then the appellant further gave a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- for the purchase of the said vehicle but still it took the respondent one year after the deposition of whole money to deliver the car which was 2005 model, according to the appellant the car was already used and already run up to 10,000 km, and was used as a “demo car” by the respondent. This matter couldn’t be settled through the FIR so the complainant filed a complaint before the district forum with the prayers that they wanted a refund of all amount with interest, replacement of the aforementioned car; pay compensation, damages, expenditures, claims and whatever the hon’ble court deem to fit as justice.

The district forum confirmed and ordered the respondent to replace the car and deliver a new car against the sum of money previously deposited. The district forum also gave compensation for mental agony and litigation costs, further, the district forum gave a finding that the delivered car was an old car. This order was confirmed by the state commission too. However, By using the revisional jurisdiction, the national commission had set aside the finding of the forum modified the orders passed by the lower forums and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the complainant.

Not satisfied with the judgement passed by the national commission the complainant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and the bench overseeing this case was comprised of Justice Krishna Murari and M.R. Shah.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Does delivering a used and defective car instead of a new one amount to unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Can the NCDRC overturn concurrent factual findings by lower consumer forums under its limited revisional jurisdiction?
3. Is the complainant entitled to compensation for mental agony and litigation costs due to the dealer’s breach of contract?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for the Appellant submitted that the findings of the facts recorded by the district forum and the state commission which were on appreciation of the entire evidence could not be set aside or inferred by the national commission in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, therefore national commission by doing so has exercised the powers beyond its ambit of revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of consumer protection act,1986.
2. It was also submitted that the appellant had deposited the total sum for a new car. Now, the duty was upon the dealer to supply a new car that was booked but non-supply of the new car even after the full payment would amount to dishonesty and unfair trade practices.
3. It was prayed that the judgement and order passed by the district forum and state commission be restored.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Respondent submitted that reasonable explanations have been given by the national commission inferring with the findings recorded by the State Commission and district forum that the car delivered was used.
2. The entire evidence was reappreciated, and nothing proves that the car delivered was an old car; therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment.

JUDGEMENT

It was held that the national commission had used more power which was beyond its ambit and the national commission should only interfere when there is injustice or the lower forum or state commission is using more power than vested by law hence the national commission has no right to set aside the judgment or evidence or inference.

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Section 21(b) grants the National Commission power to review consumer complaints pending before or already determined by any State Commission if it finds that either the State Commission exercised authority beyond its legal mandate or neglected to consider the jurisdiction granted to them or conducted their actions with illegal procedures or substantial discrepancies. The National Commission maintains restricted state powers through its authority. Based on their power to review state commission activities the National Commission can intervene only when state commissions conduct business outside legal boundaries avoid their legal authorities or conduct procedural steps improperly. Non-delivery of the new car even after the payment of the new car, is said to be an unfair practice and dishonesty by the dealer and it’s immoral and unethical, thus, the district forum and state commission were justified in directing the dealer to deliver a new car.
2. It was held that the decision and judgement passed by the state commission and district forum were justified and the appellant should be paid a certain amount specified by the court for the litigation cost etc.
3. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.2082 of 2015 was quashed and set aside.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court, in Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., upheld the consumer’s right to receive goods as promised under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the Court, a used defective vehicle deal indicates an unfair trade practice that requires strict compliance with contractual terms. The Supreme Court established that NCDRC’s power to review cases remains restricted because factual decisions made by consumer forums require confirmation unless lower forums commit legal jurisdiction errors, and this is established to respect the decisions given by the lower forums. The court ruling creates substantial protection for consumer rights by setting an important legal framework to combat unethical market methodologies.

ENDNOTES:

[i] Section 21(b) of consumer protection act 1986

[ii] Id