(O&M) v. State Bank of Patiala & Ors.

Judgment

1. The petitioner petitioner – M/s Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. assails order dated M/s Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. assails order dated

12.09.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by the 12.09.2025 National Consumer Disputes ) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), vide which r Redressal Commission filed by the vide which revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 08.08.2018 petitioner challenging order dated ) passed by the 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-16) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Appeal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Appeal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Appeal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Appeal No.84/2018 84/2018 has been dismissed.

2. t the A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are that the A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are tha A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are tha

petitioner-firm firm is running its business under the name & style of ‘M/s Swami is running its business under the name & style of ‘M/s Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd.’ and is an authorized dealer of Eicher Motors Ltd. Auto Care Pvt. Ltd.’ On and is an authorized dealer of Eicher Motors Ltd. On

16.09.2008, complainant/respondent No.4 16.09.2008, c purchased a espondent No.4 – Avtar Singh had purchased a heavy commercial vehicle i.e. a truck make ‘Eicher’ heavy commercial vehicle i.e . At the time of purchase . a truck make ‘Eicher’. At the time of purchase was also handed over a of vehicle apart from sale invoice, the complainant was also handed over a of vehicle apart from sale invoice, the complainant of vehicle apart from sale invoice, the complainant

16.09.2008 as well as temporary number. Delivery note/Certificate dated 16.09.2008 as well as temporary number. 16.09.2008 as well as temporary number. Delivery note/Certificate dated (O&M) CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) ( 2 ) one of the alphabets of the However, in the said Delivery note/Certificate, one of the alphabets of the However, in the said Delivery note/Certificate, However, in the said Delivery note/Certificate, engine number came to be written incorrectly. The complainant got the engine number came to be written incorrectly. The complainant got the engine number came to be written incorrectly. The complainant got the engine number came to be written incorrectly. The complainant got the vehicle registered and started plying the same vehicle registered and On one started plying the same for transport purposes. On one of the trips when the complainant went to Rajasthan, his vehicle was checked of the trips when the complainant went to Rajasthan, his vehicle was checked of the trips when the complainant went to Rajasthan, his vehicle was checked of the trips when the complainant went to Rajasthan, his vehicle was checked Rajasthan Police impounded his truck as the engine number and and the Rajasthan Police impounded his truck as the engine number and Rajasthan Police impounded his truck as the engine number and Rajasthan Police impounded his truck as the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle did not match with the registration certificate. chassis number of the vehicle did not match with the registration certificate. chassis number of the vehicle did not match with the registration certificate. chassis number of the vehicle did not match with the registration certificate. The complainant while asserting that it was The complainant the initial mistake it was on account of the initial mistake n mentioning the engine number incorrectly committed by the petitioner in mentioning the engine number incorrectly n mentioning the engine number incorrectly committed by the petitioner i which led to erroneous mention of engine number in Registration Certificate which led to erroneous mention of engine number in Registration Certificate which led to erroneous mention of engine number in Registration Certificate which led to erroneous mention of engine number in Registration Certificate and consequent impounding of his truck loaded with and consequent perishable goods that he loaded with perishable goods that he suffered losses, filed a complaint before the suffered losses er Disputes filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes seeking damages. Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) seeking damages. Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

3. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum The District Consumer Disputes allowing the Redressal Forum while allowing the ordered the complaint vide order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P-15) ordered the complaint vide order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P complaint vide order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ apart from on account of damages apart from granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation cost granting compensation of Rs.10,000/ The said on account of litigation cost. The said order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was challenged order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was challenged order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was challenged order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was challenged by the before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) by the before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) ng enhancement as well as by the petitioner seeking complainant seeking enhancement as well as by the petitioner seeking ng enhancement as well as by the petitioner seeking complainant seeki reversal. The The SCDRC vide its order dated 16) vide its order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-16) dismissed the appeal (Appeal No.84 of 2018) filed by the petitioner, whereas dismissed the appeal (Appeal No.84 of 2018) filed by the petitioner, whereas dismissed the appeal (Appeal No.84 of 2018) filed by the petitioner, whereas dismissed the appeal (Appeal No.84 of 2018) filed by the petitioner, whereas /respondent No.4 the appeal (Appeal No.88 of 2018) filed by the complainant/respondent No.4 the appeal (Appeal No.88 of 2018) filed by the complainant the appeal (Appeal No.88 of 2018) filed by the complainant came to be allowed and the compensation was enhanced from Rs.25,000/- came to be allowed and the compensation was came to be allowed and the compensation was . Even the litigation expenses were enhanced from Rs.10,000/- . Even the litigation expenses were enhanced from Rs.10,000/ Rs.1,00,000/-. Even the litigation expenses were enhanced from Rs.10,000/ Rs.1,00,000/ to Rs.25,000/-. to Rs.25,000/ (O&M) CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) ( 3 )

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-16), the Consumer petitioner preferred a revision petition before the National Consumer petitioner preferred a revision petition before the National petitioner preferred a revision petition before the National Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed vide Disputes Redressal Commission , which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.09.2025

12.09.2025 (Annexure P-17), which is , which is being assailed herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Learned counsel for the petitioner Fora fell in submitted that the Consumer Fora fell in and in in accepting the complaint filed by complainant/respondent No.4 and in in accepting the complaint filed by complainant/respondent No.4 error in accepting the complaint filed by complainant/respondent No.4 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas the engine and awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ chassis numbers were mentioned correctly in the sale invoice chassis numbers were mentioned correctly rnished by the in the sale invoice furnished by the petitioner to the complainant submitted that the error, if any, in to the complainant. It has been submitted that the error, if any, in submitted that the error, if any, in the registration certificate had apparently crept in on account of negligence of the registration certificate had apparently crept in on account of negligence of the registration certificate had apparently crept in on account of negligence of the registration certificate had apparently crept in on account of negligence of the registration authorities or that of the complainant himself and as such, the registration or that of the complainant himself and as such, the petitioner could not have been burdened with the compensation. It has petitioner could not have been burdened with the compensation. It has petitioner could not have been burdened with the compensation. It has petitioner could not have been burdened with the compensation. It has further been submitted that in any case since even the complaint was filed further been submitted that in any case since even the complaint was further been submitted that in any case since even the complaint was belatedly, the same ought not to have been entertained. belatedly, the same ought not to have been entertained. belatedly, the same ought not to have been entertained. s and have also gone through We have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also gone through We have considered the aforesaid submission 6. We have considered the aforesaid submission the impugned impugned orders.

7. We find that of vehicle, the petitioner had handed over We find that at the time of delivery of vehicle, the petitioner had handed over of vehicle, the petitioner had handed over the Delivery note/Certificate as well as temporary number to the complainant, the Delivery note/Certificate as well as temporary number to the complainant, the Delivery note/Certificate as well as temporary number to the complainant, the Delivery note/Certificate as well as temporary number to the complainant, wherein admittedly the engine number was came to be mentioned incorrectly. wherein admittedly the engine number was came to be mentioned incorrectly. wherein admittedly the engine number was came to be mentioned incorrectly. wherein admittedly the engine number was came to be mentioned incorrectly. It was on account of said errors committed initially It was on account of said errors committed petitioner’s end that initially at the petitioner’s end that the said mistake urther in the registration certificate said mistake came to be perpetuated further in the registration certificate urther in the registration certificate the vehicle came to be impounded when the same was and consequently, the vehicle came to be impounded when the same was the vehicle came to be impounded when the same was and consequently checked by the Rajasthan Police, which apparently led to harassment and checked by the Rajasthan Police, which apparently led to harassment and checked by the Rajasthan Police, which apparently led to harassment and checked by the Rajasthan Police, which apparently led to harassment and losses to the complainant. In view of the said factual position, the petitioner e complainant. In view of the said factual position, the petitioner In view of the said factual position, the petitioner (O&M) CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) ( 4 ) cannot shift the blame entirely to the registration authorities as initially the cannot shift the blame entirely to the registration authorities as initially the cannot shift the blame entirely to the registration authorities as initially the cannot shift the blame entirely to the registration authorities as initially the had been committed at the petitioner’s end. error had been committed at the petitioner’s end. had been committed at the petitioner’s end.

8. as far as the plea of the petitioner that the complaint being barred by Further as far as the plea of the petitioner that the complaint being barred by as far as the plea of the petitioner that the complaint being barred by as far as the plea of the petitioner that the complaint being barred by limitation is concerned, we find no such objection was ever raised by the limitation is concerned, we find no such objection was ever raised by the limitation is concerned, we find no such objection was ever raised by the limitation is concerned, we find no such objection was ever raised by the petitioner in its written statement filed before the District Consumer Disputes petitioner in its written statement filed before the District Consumer Disputes petitioner in its written statement filed before the District Consumer Disputes petitioner in its written statement filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. As such, it does not Redressal Commission lie in the mouth of the petitioner not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise any such objection at this belated stage when the matter has already to raise any such objection at this belated stage when the matter has already to raise any such objection at this belated stage when the matter has already to raise any such objection at this belated stage when the matter has already been adjudicated by the three forums. been adjudicated by the three forums.

9. We also find that find that the reasoning assigned by the Disputes reasoning assigned by the District Consumer Disputes ommission as well as by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Redressal Commission as well as by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal ommission as well as by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Redressal C Commission Commission Commission Commission in appeal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal in appeal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal in appeal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal in appeal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal is well founded. In any case, the scope of Commission in revision is well founded. In any case, the scope of is well founded. In any case, the scope of Commission in revision interference in writ jurisdiction so as to assail the said orders interference in writ jurisdiction would be very so as to assail the said orders would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned orders or if there limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned orders or limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned orders or is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there in the instant case. is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there in the instant case. is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there in the instant case. is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there in the instant case. M/s Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, M/s Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2022 SC 422 , while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 SC 422, while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 , while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: of the Constitution, held as under: Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view “18. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or (O&M) CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) ( 5 ) can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. rcised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set jurisdiction exe right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 fundamental principles of law or justice. fundamental principles of law or justice. is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” relief must be exercised to ensure there is no relief must be exercised to ensure there is no

10. Examining the impugned order Examining the impugned order/s in the light of ratio of law M/s in the light of ratio of law laid down in M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the Garment Craft’s case (supra), we do not find any perversity or illegality in the e do not find any perversity or illegality in the Garment Craft’s case (supra) impugned order/s so as to warrant any interference impugned order in exercise of writ any interference in exercise of writ Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby jurisdiction. dismissed. dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. 11. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE

17.04.2026 Vimal (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No