National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Manager, A.M. Honda & Anr. vs Sureshkumar O. on 21 October, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2024
(Against the Order dated 4th June 2024 in Appeal A/141/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission Kerala)
WITH
NC/IA/2847/2025 (STAY)
NC/IA/14755/2024 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION)
NC/IA/14756/2024 (DIRECTIONS)
I NC/IA/14754/2024 (STAY)
1. MANAGER, A.M. HONDA
MANJERI BRANCH, CALICUT ROAD, MANJERI,
CALICUT, KERALA STATE, PIN-676121
2. THE DIRECTOR/GENERAL MANAGER
HONDA MOTOR CYCLE & SCOOTERS INDIA PVT: LTD
PLOT NO. 1, SECTOR-3 IMT MANESER, GURGAON
HARYANA, PIN-122050 Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SURESH KUMAR O. S/O KUMARAN
ONASSERIYIL HOUSE, CHANDAKKUNNU POST
NILAMBUR, MALAPURAM,
KERALA STATE, PIN-679329 Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR.SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Petitioner(s): MR. RENJITH B. MARAR &
MR. ARUN POOMULLI, ADV
For the Respondent(s): MR. MAHESH N.G., ADV (VC)
Dated : 21.10.2025
ORDER
1. Heard counsel for both sides. Challenge is to order dated 04.06.2024 of the State Commission, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner, who was OP before the District Forum, was dismissed and the order of the District Forum dated 26.09.2016 was upheld. The RP NO. 2622 OF 2024 Page 1 of 5 complaint was allowed by the District Forum as per the said order with the following directions:
"On the basis of the findings on the above point we allow the complaint as follows
(i) The opposite parties shall pay Rs.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty two thousand only) which is the price of the vehicle purchased by complainant.
(H) On payment of the said amount the complainant shall return the vehicle purchased by him to opposite parties.
(Hi) The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for his mental agony of complainant and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. (iy) The opposite parties should pay Rs.3,000/- also to complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The amount mentioned above should be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they shall pay the same with interest @12% per annum from that day till realization. To remove doubts it is specified that the liability to opposite parties are joint and several. "
2. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle supplied to him was a demo vehicle and not a new vehicle as claimed. The petitioner herein, on the other hand, contests such a claim and still claims that it was a new vehicle and the same was registered for the first time in the name of the complainant on 21.07.2012, the date when the vehicle was sold. The petitioners herein admit that on the next day of purchase i.e., 22.07.2012, the vehicle was brought to the dealer's place with certain complaints, which the dealer claims were duly addressed, and the complainant was asked to come for the first service on 04.08.2012. The petitioner also admits that again on 04.09.2012, the vehicle was brought back to the dealer with certain complaints, which were duly attended to and the vehicle was delivered back on 22.09.2012. Thereafter, a letter was issued by the complainant on 25.09.2012 to the dealer stating that it was a demo vehicle and subsequently a consumer complaint was filed RP NO. 2622 OF 2024 Page 2 of 5 t I / / / / on 28.11.2012. The petitioner herein has not placed on record followings:
(i) Copy of the invoice dated 21.07.2012.
(ii) Copy of the first service record dated 04.08.2012.
(iii) Letter dated 25.09.2012.
(iv) Exhibit A-6 trade certificate, etc.
3. Both the fora below have given concurrent findings that the vehicle sold to the complainant was a demo vehicle, which was used by Aditya Honda Company and had been registered in the name of that company with RTO Calicut. Exhibit A-6, which was placed before the lower fora, relates to the trade certificate and contains the same chassis number and engine number, etc. The vehicle was also subsequently inspected by an expert. In this regard, extract of the relevant paras of the State Commission is reproduced below:
14. The vehicle was inspected by an expert who was examinedCWI. Exhibit C1 is the report submitted by the expert. The expert had also noticed that this vehicle was used as a demo vehicle which was earlier registered in the name of Adithya Honda at the Registering Authority Kozhikode. The evidence let in by the expert was assailed on the reason that the expert had opined that this vehicle was earlier registered with the registering authority Kozhikode only on the basis of Exhibit A6 and hence the observation made by the expert in Exhibit C1 may not be accepted as true and correct. The conduct of the opposite party in not causing production of the document pertaining to the registration of the vehicle despite a specific order passed by the District Commission on 27.09.2013 on a petition filed by the complainant as I.A.No.220/2013 assumes significance. The complainant had filed the I.A. for directing the opposite party to cause production of the records regarding the registration of this particular motor bike. Though a specific direction was issued by the District Commission, the opposite party did not cause production of the records evidencing the registration of the motor bike.
Adverse inference has to be drawn against the opposite parties that they did not cause production of those documents as those documents would prove the falsity of the case set up by the opposite party.
15. The evidence let in by the complainant by way of affidavit in lieu of chief examination stands unchallenged. Exhibit A6 was marked without any objection on the side of the opposite parties. If the stand taken by the opposite party is genuine, objection could have been raised when Exhibit A6 was RP NO. 2622 OF 2024 Page 3 of 5 / / admitted in evidence. There is no case for the opposite party that Exhibit A6 is a concocted document. The evidence of the complainant in this regard 'f appears to be natural and genuine. As per Exhibit A6 it could be seen that the instant vehicle was registered with the registering authority Kozhikode on 13.02.2022 in the name of one Faheed as the holder of the trade certificate. So it is crystal clear that this vehicle was used as a demo vehicle from 13.02.2012 onwards. The earlier registration was done in the name of Aditya Honda, Kozhikode. By suppressing this fact, the used vehicle was delivered to the complainant."
4. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgmentsl 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 jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise 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 concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Both the fora below have concurrent findings with regard to the vehicle in question being a demo vehicle and already registered in another name before it was sold to the complainant herein. Both the fora have upheld the OPs as guilty of deficiency in service.
5. After careful consideration of the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, relevant documents and rival contentions, we are of the Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ((20) I) 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, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingcswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608. Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31 RP NO. 2622 OF 2024 Page 4 of 5 considered view that both the fora below have passed well-reasoned order(s). We do not find any reason to interfere with their findings. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.
6. As the petitioner herein claims to have already deposited the entire decretal amount, in compliance with this Commission's order dated 13.03.2025, the complainant shall return the bike to the petitioner herein within 15 days of this order. The bike may be delivered to the authorized dealer i.e., Petitioner No. 1, who will issue due acknowledgement of the receipt of the bike. The respondent shall produce such an acknowledgement copy before the Registrar, NCDRC, who, after due verification, shall release the decretal amount along with accrued interest, if any, to the respondent within two weeks of receipt of such acknowledgement of delivery of the vehicle after usual verification. If the amount deposited falls short of the decretal amount, the respondent herein shall be free to take further steps for recovery of the amount. With these directions, the revision petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending lA's, if any, stand disposed off.
8. Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent, on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order. .Sd/-,.
................................................... . ( DR. INDER JIT SINGH ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.) MEMBER PS/B3/AB/5 RP NO. 2622 OF 2024 Page 5 of 5