The Supreme Court has ruled that Dealers can't delivery used cars under the guise of 'DemoTest Drive Vehicle' as the same would amount to 'Unfair Trade Practices'.
The single-judge Bench of Justice M R Shah observed that non-delivery of a new car can be said to be an unfair trade practice and even it can be said to be dishonesty on the part of the dealer and against the morality and ethics.
Brief Facts of the Case
The appeal has been filed against the NCDRC decision by which the National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum as well as the State Commission.
The appellant herein purchased an SUV an deposited the booking amount with the dealer for which a receipt was issued. That thereafter he deposited a further sum of Rs.5,30,000/ towards purchase amount of the said vehicle. The delivery of the booked SUV was done one year later. The SUV received was as such an old one and was of 2005 model and in fact was a used car. It was also having various other defects. That according to the original complainant the car was old and it had already run upto 10,000 kms. The car which was delivered was used by the dealer as “DemoTest Drive Vehicle”.
Consequently, a Consumer Complaint has been filed before the District Forum. It was found that the delivered car was used car and was being used as “DemoTest Drive Vehicle”.
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the dealer to take back the delivered vehicle and in lieu thereof to deliver a new car to the complainant against the previously deposited amount. The District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ towards the mental agony besides a sum of Rs.2500/ towards litigation costs.
The order passed by the District Forum came to be confirmed by the State Commission. However, by the impugned judgment and order and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has set aside the findings of facts recorded by the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the car delivered was used car.
However, having given the findings that the complainant got a defective car, the National Commission modified the orders passed by the District Forum confirmed by the State Commission and directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to the complainant.
It has been contended in the appeal that the National Commission while interfering with the findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission has exercised the powers beyond the scope and ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It was submitted that when the complainant paid the full sale consideration for a new car, the duty was cast upon the dealer to supply the new car which was booked. It was submitted that nonsupply of the new car which was booked even on payment of the sale consideration would tantamount to dishonesty and unfair trade practice.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Court at the outset noted that when the complainant – customer booked a new car and paid the sale consideration of a new car, the dealer was supposed to and/or bound to deliver the new car instead the dealer delivered the used car which was used as “DemoTest Drive Vehicle”
It didn't approve of the Dealer's doings and called out the 'unfair trade practice'.
"Even as per the findings recorded by the National Commission
the car which was delivered was a defective car. Even to deliver the
defective car against the new
car was also not permissible. Not to deliver the new car despite the
full sale consideration paid and/or to deliver the defective car can be
said to be unfair trade practice."
Jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The Court opined that as per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction 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 its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Noting that powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
"In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record."
The appeal was thus allowed.
CASE TITLE: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5928 of 2022
CASE DETAILS: Rajiv Shukla VS Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr.
CORAM: Justice M R Shah
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments