Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd.
Background
Rajiv Shukla booked a new Tata Victa GX TC car with dealer Gold Rush Sales and Services and paid the full purchase price, but the car was not delivered for over a year. When it finally arrived, it turned out to be an already-used 2005-model demo/test-drive vehicle that had run about 10,000 km and had various defects, not the new car he had paid for. His complaint succeeded before the District Forum and the State Consumer Commission, both of which ordered the dealer to deliver a new car, but the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission overturned those findings in a revision petition and instead awarded only Rs. 1 lakh compensation.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the National Commission had exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act by overturning the concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and State Commission: a revisional court may only interfere where there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity, not simply re-appreciate evidence. Since both lower forums had specifically found the delivered vehicle was a used demo car, and even the National Commission itself acknowledged the vehicle was defective, the Court held that delivering a used car instead of a new one amounted to unfair trade practice and dishonesty by the dealer. The Court restored the original orders of the District Forum and State Commission directing delivery of a genuine new car, and additionally imposed Rs. 1 lakh in costs on the dealer (split between the complainant and the Supreme Court's Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee).
Lesson Learnt
A consumer who pays full price for a "new" product is legally entitled to receive exactly that, delivering a used or demo item instead is unfair trade practice, and higher consumer forums exercising revisional powers cannot simply substitute their own view for concurrent factual findings reached by the lower forums.