2025:HHC:34587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4848 of 2025 Decided on: 07.10.2025 Ganesha Motors and another … Petitioners Versus Amit Kumar Guleria and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d). : M/s Jagdish Thakur and Munish Thakur, Advocates for respondent No. 2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Allow the Petition against the Final Order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1972 of 2024 (Annexure P-8) same may be quashed and set aside consequently dismissing the Complaint filed by predecessor in interest of respondent No. 1.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34587 2. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1(a) to 1(d) (original complainant) filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act praying for issuance of a direction to the present petitioner for the repair of the vehicle free of cost as well as for compensation for harassment. As per the complainant, he purchased a vehicle, i.e. new Punto Car in exchange of Tata Zest car bearing No. HP-33D-5890 at the offered exchange price of Rs.4,90,000/-. This was alongwith free insurance for first year. The vehicle was purchased by paying an amount of Rs.8,07,542. According to the complainant, after paying premium through cheque, assurance was given by the present petitioners that all documents required for registration of the vehicle shall be supplied within a short span of time, but the same was not done. On 02.11.2016, the vehicle met with an accident. It was taken to the workshop of the present petitioners where certain papers were signed by the complainant, who was assured that the vehicle would be repaired. In the meanwhile, as per the complainant, while he was waiting for the repair of his car, he received an information from the Insurance Company that the cheque of premium issued by the present petitioners was dishonoured and the Insurance Policy of the car was cancelled. With all these facts, the complainant approached 3 2025:HHC:34587 the learned Consumer Court and the learned Consumer Court, in terms of its order dated 04.06.2019, allowed the complaint against the present petitioners by directing the present petitioners to repair the vehicle in question free of cost to the entire satisfaction of the complainant alongwith cost of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. In appeal, the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum was upheld by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in terms of order dated 05.04.2024 (Annexure P-6). The revision petition filed by the petitioners before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also met with the same fate. Learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the revision petition in terms of Annexure P-8 and feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as well as State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which primarily are the Courts of facts, also returned concurrent findings against the present petitioners, which could not be demonstrated to be perverse or out of record. Therefore, as it is a matter of record that the cheque of the premium paid by the petitioners to the Insurance Company for the insurance of the vehicle 4 2025:HHC:34587 in issue was dishonoured and there was no insurance covering the vehicle as on the date when the accident took place, obviously, as all this happened on account of omission of the petitioners, learned Foras below rightly granted the reliefs in favour of the complainant. In light of these observations, as this Court does not find any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 07, 2025 (narender)