MS SWAMI AUTO CARE PVT LTD v. STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND OTHERS

However, in the said Delivery note/Certificate, engine number came to be written incorrectly. The complainant got the vehicle registered and

of the trips when the complainant went to Rajasthan, his vehicle was checked and the Rajasthan Police impounded his truck as the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle did not match with the registration certificate. The complainant

committed by the petitioner i

which led to erroneous mention of engine number in Registration Certificate and consequent

suffered losses

Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

3. The District Consumer Disputes complaint vide order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ granting compensation of Rs.10,000/ order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was challenged before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) complainant seeki

reversal. The

dismissed the appeal (Appeal No.84 of 2018) filed by the petitioner, whereas the appeal (Appeal No.88 of 2018) filed by the complainant came to be allowed and the compensation was

Rs.1,00,000/

to Rs.25,000/

( 2 )

started plying the same while asserting that it was n mentioning the engine number incorrectly impounding of his truck loaded with , filed a complaint before the seeking damages.

Redressal Forum

- on account of

- on account of litigation cost ng enhancement as well as by the petitioner seeking SCDRC vide its order dated

-. Even the litigation expenses were enhanced from Rs.10,000/ -.

one of the alphabets of the

for transport purposes. On one

on account of the initial mistake

perishable goods that he

District Consumer Disputes

while allowing the

-15) ordered the

damages apart from

. The said by the

08.08.2018 (Annexure P-16) /respondent No.4

enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to

-

2

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated petitioner preferred a revision petition before the National Disputes Redressal Commission

dated 12.09.2025

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner error in accepting the complaint filed by complainant/respondent No.4 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ chassis numbers were mentioned correctly

petitioner to the complainant

the registration certificate had apparently crept in on account of negligence of the registration

petitioner could not have been burdened with the compensation. It has further been submitted that in any case since even the complaint was belatedly, the same ought not to have been entertained.

6. We have considered the aforesaid submission the impugned

7. We find that the Delivery note/Certificate as well as temporary number to the complainant, wherein admittedly the engine number was came to be mentioned incorrectly. It was on account of said errors committed

the said mistake

and consequently

checked by the Rajasthan Police, which apparently led to harassment and losses to the complainant.

( 3 )

08.08.2018 (Annexure P , which was dismissed vide (Annexure P-17), which is submitted that the in the sale invoice

. It has been submitted that the error, if any, in authorities or that of the complainant himself and as such, orders.

at the time of delivery of vehicle, the petitioner had handed over initially

came to be perpetuated further in the registration certificate , the vehicle came to be impounded when the same was In view of the said factual position, the petitioner -16), the

Consumer

impugned order

being assailed herein.

Consumer Fora fell in

and in

-, whereas the engine and

furnished by the

the

filed

s and have also gone through

at the petitioner's end that

3

cannot shift the blame entirely to the registration authorities as initially the error had been committed at the petitioner's end.

8. Further 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 petitioner in its written statement filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

to raise any such objection at this belated stage when the matter has already been adjudicated by the three forums.

9. We also find that Redressal C

Commission in appeal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in revision

interference in writ jurisdiction

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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

AIR 2022 SC 422

of the Constitution, held as under:

"18. 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 several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based.

error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or

( 4 )

. As such, it does not the reasoning assigned by the ommission as well as by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal is well founded. In any case, the scope of

so as to assail the said orders

M/s Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel,

, while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 Supervisory jurisdiction is

lie in the mouth of the petitioner

District Consumer Disputes

would be very

if there

227 of the

not to correct every

4

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. jurisdiction exe

right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no

10. Examining the impugned order Garment Craft's case (supra) impugned order

jurisdiction.

dismissed.

11. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.

17.04.2026

Vimal

( 5 )

rcised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set /s in the light of ratio of law

, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the /s so as to warrant any interference

Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Whether reportable:

The

The power under Article 227 is no

miscarriage of justice."

laid down in M/s

in exercise of writ

)

JUDGE

(RAMESH KUMARI)

JUDGE

Yes/No Yes/No

5