Commission Not Required To Reassess Evidence To Reach Its Conclusion : NCDRC While Dismissing Petition Against Renault India

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice C. Vishwanath as the presiding member and Subhash Chandra as the member observed that that jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion.

In the matter at hand, Petitioner in 2013 purchased Renault Plus car for Rs.6,18,500/-. On 19.09.2013, the Petitioner brought the vehicle by towing to the workshop. On checking, it was found that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to driving of the vehicle without engine oil. The Respondents demanded repair charges despite the fact that the car was within the warranty period. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner approached the district forum.

It was submitted by Opposite Parties and it was contested that the complaint and stated that the Complainant for the first time brought the vehicle to the service centre  2013 with the complaint of low pick up. On checking, it was found that the engine oil chamber of the vehicle was damaged and the entire oil had leaked from the engine, due to which the pick-up got low. The Complainant did not allow opening of engine, therefore, only oil chamber of the vehicle was replaced and the car was returned to the Complainant to his satisfaction.

Later, the Complainant again brought the vehicle by towing to the workshop. On checking, it was found that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to driving of the vehicle without engine oil, because earlier the Complainant did not permit checking of the vehicle by opening of engine. Consequently, the benefit of warranty was not given to the Complainant due to negligence of the Complainant. 

Opposite Party No.2 (Renault India Pvt. Ltd) stated that the allegation of the Complainant related to the repairing work of the car. There was no allegation that defective car was given to him and therefore, they are not liable for any deficiency in service. 

In the light of the aforementioned the Complaint was dismissed by the district forum and then later by the state forum in concurrence with the findings of the district forum. Thereafter the petitioner approached the national commission.

The bench observed that the petitioner did not come to the commission with clean hands and had not disclosed when he went for repairing of the car for the first time. The bench noted that findings about the suppression of facts were also recorded by the district forum.

The bench noted that jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice.

The revision petition was hence dismissed.

Case: SUVIK BARAN MITRA V. MAHADEVA CAR PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS

REVISION PETITION NO. 3291 OF 2015