| |
CDJ 2026 (Cons.) Case No.201
|
| Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) |
| Case No : NC/RP/1773 of 2017 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. SHASHI NANDKEOLYAR, MEMBER |
| Parties : Tottenham India Law Associates Through Shri Tushar Mahapatra, New Delhi & Another Versus Su-Kam,Through AGM (Sales) & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Faiz Khan, Advocate (V.C). For the Respondents: R-1 to 3, ex-parte vide order dated 13.01.2025, R4, None.\r\n |
| Date of Judgment : 19-06-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- None
2. Catch Words:
- Ex‑parte
- Deficiency in service
- Defective product
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Concurrent findings
- Appeal dismissed
- Petition dismissed
3. Summary:
- R‑4 did not file a vakalatnama, so the case proceeded ex‑parte on merits.
- The petition challenges the State Commission’s order dated 14.03.2017, which upheld the District Commission’s dismissal of the complaint.
- The District Commission had found no evidence of a defect in the inverter or any deficiency in service and rejected the complaint.
- The State Commission affirmed those findings.
- The National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot interfere with concurrent findings of the lower fora unless there is illegality, material irregularity, or perversity.
- As both the District and State Commissions arrived at the same conclusion, there is no ground for interference.
- Consequently, the revision petition (RP/1773/2017) is dismissed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. None appears for R-4. It is seen that, although on 08.09.2025, Mr. Lakhan Gupta, Advocate, appeared for R-4, he has not filed his vakalatnama so far.
2. Accordingly, R-4 is also proceeded ex-parte on merits and case is taken up on merits.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioners.
4. The challenge is to the order dated 14.03.2017 of the State Commission vide which first appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed and the order of the District Commission was upheld. Earlier, the District Commission vide its order dated 11.01.2017, dismissed the complaint, observing that the complainant has failed to prove that he has made any complaint for the inverter and has not placed on record any expert opinion regarding defect in the inverter. The District Commission observed that it cannot hold OPs guilty for defective product or in deficiency in service, hence the complaint was dismissed. It was also observed that the kacha receipts annexed as annuxure- 2 has no evidentiary value.
5. The State Commission, agreeing with the findings of the District Commission, dismissed the first appeal.
6. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments1 that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a 1 Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. {(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ) Limited and Ors, (2C1--.-7.SCC 2.36, ' Ramalingeswan Rao (Dead', Through Legal Representativesand An.-. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2.019' 4 SCC Ct)?. Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC £1 jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (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. In the present case, both the fora below have given concurrent findings with respect to there being no deficiency in service and the product not being defective. We see no reason to interfere with their findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the State Commission. Accordingly, the same is upheld. Consequently, RP/1773/2017 is dismissed.
7. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
|
| |
