The Supreme Court on Thursday said not delivering a new car or delivering a defective vehicle despite full payment of sale consideration can be said to be "unfair trade practice".
The apex court observed non-delivery of a new car despite full payment can also be said to be dishonesty on the part of the dealer and against morality and ethics.
The court's observations came on a case related to purchase of a car. The complainant had alleged the vehicle was delivered to him after one year of the deposit of the total amount.
The complainant had claimed the car delivered to him was old and was used by the dealer as 'demo-test drive vehicle'.
A bench of Justice M R Shah and Krishna Murari set aside a judgement delivered in January 2016 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the matter.
The NCDRC had set aside the findings recorded by the district forum, which was confirmed by the state commission, that the car delivered in the case was a used vehicle.
While observing that the complainant had got a defective car, the NCDRC had modified the order passed by the district forum and directed that compensation of Rs one lakh be paid to him.
The district forum had directed the dealer to take back the car and deliver a new vehicle to the complainant against the previously deposited amount.
It had also awarded Rs 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs 2,500 towards litigation cost.
The NCDRC's judgement was challenged in the apex court by the complainant.
In its verdict, the apex court noted that the complainant had booked a new car and paid the entire sale consideration and the dealer was bound to deliver a new car.
"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," the bench said.
"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," it said.
The apex court noted the district forum and the state commission were absolutely justified in directing the dealer to replace the delivered car and to deliver a new car.
It noted that on appreciation of evidence on record, the district forum as well as the state commission concurrently found that the vehicle delivered was a used car.
The bench observed the NCDRC would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction only in a case where it is found that 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.
"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," it said.
The bench said while passing the judgement, the NCDRC had acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
While setting aside the NCDRC verdict, the apex court restored the district forum's April 2011 order, which was confirmed by the state commission.
"The present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent with costs which is quantified at Rs One lakh to be deposited by Respondent No.1 (dealer) within a period of six weeks from today with the registry of this court," it said.
It said on such deposit, Rs 50,000 be paid to the appellant towards litigation cost and Rs 50,000 be transferred to the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) of the Supreme Court.
-With PTI Input
