MEGHA MALHOTRA v DADA NISSAN & ANR, NISSAN MOTORS INDIA

PVT. LTD.
(Revision Petition Number No. 713 of 2019)

FACTS OF THE CASE

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent charged an excess
amount of Rs. 20,000 by selling Nissan Micra Mc DCI XE which had the
showroom price of Rs. 5,66,386 /- but further logistic charges of Rs. 8,000 /- were
added. Further Rs.17,618/- were charged as Insurance Charges and Registration
Charges of Rs.31,887/- of the vehicle were demanded by the Respondent No.1.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the said amount be
awarded which were charged excessively by the Respondent No.1 by enhancing
the award passed by the District Forum.  The findings recorded by the District
Forum as also the State Commission are based on appreciation of the evidence and
material on record and do not suffer any illegality.

ISSUE
1. Whether there would be an application of revisional jurisdiction by the
National Commission in the contended case?

DECISION

The court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under
Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in
case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely
when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had
exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise a
jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or
with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had
exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-
bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two
fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case
that was required.”

Thus, the court did not find any ground to interfere in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction as the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality or material irregularity.  Hence, the Revision Petition was
dismissed