/2022 INSC 0788/
1
REPORTABLE
  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5928 of 2022
Rajiv Shukla   … Appellant
 Versus
Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr.        … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the National
Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   New   Delhi   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   ‘National   Commission’)   in   Revision   Petition
No.2082   of   2015   by   which   the   National   Commission   in

2
exercise of revisional jurisdiction has set aside the concurrent
findings   recorded   by   the   District   Forum   as   well   as   the   State
Commission,   the   original   complainant   has   preferred   the
present appeal.
2. That   the   appellant   herein   –   original   complainant
purchased a Tata Victa GX TC Car.   He deposited the booking
amount  with  the dealer  – M/s. Gold  Rush Sales  and  Services
Ltd.   –   respondent   no.1   herein   against   which   a   receipt   was
issued.     That   thereafter   the   complainant   deposited   a   further
sum   of   Rs.5,30,000/­   towards   purchase   amount   of   the   said
vehicle.     That   the   booked   car   was   not   delivered   to   the
complainant till 26.05.2006.   However, the  delivery  of the car
was   given   to   the   complainant   after   a   period   of   one   year   of
deposit of the total amount, which as such was 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”.  The original complainant

3
lodged the FIR with the police.  However, the matter could not
be   settled   and   therefore,   the   complainant   filed   a   complaint
before the District Forum with the following prayers:
"i)   pass   the   order   to   opposite   party   to   replace   aforesaid
delivered   used   car   Tata   Victa   GX   TC   Model   no.   2005,
Chasis   No.   446370702­938757,   Registration   No.   U.P.   BS­
8084   and   delivered   new   car/vehicle   to   the   applicant/
consumer.
 
ii) pass an order for refund all such amounts with interest
to   which   the   opposite   parties   has   taken   to   the
applicant/consumer. 
iii)   pass   an   order   against   the   opposite   parties   to   pay   five,
compensation,   damages,   expenditure,   claims   and   all   such
amounts   with   due   interest   to   the   applicant/   consumer
accordingly   as   calculated   and   claimed   in   the   paras   24   of
the application. 
iv)   to   pass   such   order   appropriate   or   direction   which   the
Hon'ble Court may deem just in the interest of justice and
as well as according to the circumstances of the case".
2.1 The   District   Forum   allowed   the   complaint   and   directed
the respondent no.1 – 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
District Forum specifically gave a finding that the delivered car

4
was   used   car   and   was   being   used   as   “Demo­Test   Drive
Vehicle”.  
2.2 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.
2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   NCDRC   ­   National
Commission,   the   complainant   has   preferred   the   present
appeal.

5
3. Shri   Praveen   Agrawal,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the appellant – original complainant has vehemently
submitted  that   the   National   Commission   has   materially  erred
in   upsetting   the   findings   of   facts   recorded   by   the   District
Forum and the State Commission that the car delivered was a
used car.   It is submitted that on appreciation of evidence on
record,   both,   the   District   Forum   as   well   as   the   State
Commission   gave   specific   findings   that   the   car   delivered   was
used   car.     It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   findings   of   facts
recorded   by   the   District   Forum   and   the   State   Commission
which   were   on   appreciation   of   entire   evidence   could   not   have
been   set   aside   and/or   interfered   with   by   the   National
Commission   in   exercise   of   the   revisional   jurisdiction.   It   is
submitted   that   therefore   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.

6
3.1 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant   that   even   otherwise   the   findings   recorded   by   the
National   Commission   on   the   delivered   car   is   contrary   to   the
findings   on   record.     It   is   submitted   that   considering   the   test
drive/demo   slip   of   the   delivered   car   having   Chassis   No.
939353,   it   was   established   and   proved   that   the   delivered   car
was used as demo/test drive car.
3.2 It   is   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   is
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.     It   is   submitted   that
therefore   the   District   Forum   and   the   State   Commission   were
justified in  directing   the respondent  no.1  – dealer   to  deliver   a
new car against the previously deposited amount.

7
3.3 Making   the   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeal and restore the judgment and order passed by
the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission.
4. Mr.   Abhinav   Ramkrishna,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   respondent   no.1   has   supported   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the National Commission.
4.1 It   is   submitted   that   the   cogent   reasons   have   been   given
by   the   National   Commission   interfering   with   the   findings
recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission that
the car delivered was a used car.
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   on   reappreciation   of   the   entire
evidence   on   record,   the   National   Commission   has   rightly
observed   that   no   evidence   has   been   led   to   show   that   the   car
delivered   was   an   old   car.     It   is   submitted   that   therefore   no
case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and
order passed by the National Commission.

8
5. Shri   Sidharth   Bhatnagar,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing on behalf of the Tata Motors Limited has submitted
that   as   such   Respondent   no.2   –   Tata   Motors   Limited   is   a
proforma respondent as no order has been passed against the
respondent no.2 – Tata Motors Limited.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant
herein   ­   original   complainant   booked   a   new   car   and   as   such
paid   the   entire   sale   consideration.     Therefore,   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 respondent no.1 –
dealer   delivered   the   used   car   which   was   used   as   “Demo­Test
Drive   Vehicle”.     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

9
despite   the   full   sale   consideration   paid   and/or   to   deliver   the
defective   car   can   be   said   to   be   unfair   trade   practice.
Therefore,   as   such   the   District   Forum   and   the   State
Commission   were   absolutely   justified   in   directing   the
respondent   no.1   –   dealer   to   replace   the   delivered   car   and   to
deliver a new car.
7.1 At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   on
appreciation  of  evidence   on  record   the   District   Forum   as   well
as   the   State   Commission   concurrently   found   that   the   car
delivered was used car.  Such findings of facts recorded by the
District Forum and the State Commission were not required to
be   interfered   by   the   National   Commission   in   exercise   of   the
revisional   jurisdiction.     It   is   required   to   be   noted   that   while
passing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   National
Commission   was   exercising   the   revisional   jurisdiction   vested
under   Section   21   of   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986.     As
per   Section   21(b)   the   National   Commission   shall   have
jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders

10
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.   Thus,
the 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.     Therefore,   while   passing
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   National   Commission
has   acted   beyond   the   scope   and   ambit   of   the   revisional

11
jurisdiction   conferred   under   Section   21(b)   of   the   Consumer
Protection Act. 
7.2. As   observed   hereinabove,   both,   the   District   Forum   as
well   as   the   State   Commission   specifically   gave   the   findings
that   the   vehicle   delivered   was   used   car   which   was   used   as
“Demo­Test Drive Vehicle”.   As observed hereinabove even the
National   Commission   has   also   observed   and   held   that   the
vehicle delivered was defective and therefore even the National
Commission has directed that the compensation in the sum of
Rs.1   lakh   be   paid   to   the   complainant   for   the   delivery   of   the
defective car.   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.
As   observed   hereinabove,   once   the   new   car   was   booked   and
the full sale consideration was paid, a duty was cast upon the
dealer to deliver a new car which is not defective therefore the
District Forum as well as the State Commission were justified
in directing the dealer to give delivery of a new car.

12
8. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the
impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   04.01.2016   passed   by
the  National Commission in Revision Petition No.2082 of 2015
is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.   The   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   District   Forum   dated   29.04.2011   passed   in
Consumer   Case   No.397   of   2007   confirmed   by   the   State
Commission   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   19.09.2014   in
Appeal   No.910   of   2011   are   hereby   restored.     The   Respondent
no.1 is hereby directed to comply with the judgment and order
passed   by   the   District   Forum.     The   present   appeal   is
accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent with costs which is
quantified   at   Rs.1   lakh   to   be   deposited   by   Respondent   No.1
within   a   period   of   six   weeks   from   today   with   the   Registry   of
this   Court.     On   such   deposit   Rs.50,000/­   be   paid   to   the
appellant   herein   towards   the   costs/litigation   cost   etc.   and
Rs.50,000/­   be   transferred   to   the   Mediation   and   Conciliation

13
Project   Committee   (MCPC),   Supreme   Court   of   India,   New
Delhi.
…………………………………J.
            (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
    (KRISHNA MURARI)
New Delhi, 
September 8, 2022.