Decided on March 26,2021

Maruti Suzuki India Limited Appellant
Deepak Singh Respondents


DEEPA SHARMA,J. - (1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2017 of the State Commission in Appeal No. 867 of 2014 whereby the Appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed. The said Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 08.07.2014 of the District Forum in Complaint No. 629 of 2004 whereby the District Forum while allowing the Complaint, directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on account o deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and litigation expenses. Vide the impugned order the order of the District Forum was confirmed.
(2.) In the present Revision Petition the Petitioner has challenged the findings on the ground that there was no evidence on record to prove that the subject vehicle was having any manufacturing defects and hence the Foras below have wrongly concluded that the vehicle was having a manufacturing defect and thus has wrongly put the liability on the Petitioner to compensate the Complainant. It is argued that no expert opinion had been sought regarding the manufacturing defect. In support of its contentions the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the findings in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Hashmukh Lakshmichand and Anr., 3(2009) CPJ 229(NC), Sushila Automobiles Vs. Birendra Narain Prasad and Others, III (2010) CPJ 130(NC), Raj Bala Vs. Skoda Auto and Others, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 945, Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Another, 1 (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal and Others, 1999 (7) SCC 280 and Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. P. Vasudeva, 2006 SCC OnLine NCDRC 37: (2006) 4 CPJ 167. 2. The Respondent No. 1 i.e. the Complainant however has argued that the Petitioner, by way of this Revision Petition is actually seeking re-appreciation and re-assessment of the evidences and wants this Commission to substitute its findings on facts which is not permissible in the revisional jurisdiction. It is further argued that the very fact that the Petitioner is contending that the conclusions arrived at by the Foras below is wrong, shows that the Petitioner, in fact, urging this Commission to exercise appellate jurisdiction instead of exercising its revisional jurisdiction. It is argued that even if there could be any other opinion on the facts proved by the Foras below, this Commission cannot in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction substitute it.
(3.) I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the Ld. Counsels and have perused the relevant record.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.