CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT M/s Swami Auto State Bank of Patiala & others CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. The petitioner 12.09.2025 Redressal Commission petitioner challenging order dated State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Appeal No.84/2018 2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are tha petitioner-firm Auto Care Pvt. Ltd.’ 16.09.2008, c heavy commercial vehicle i.e of vehicle apart from sale invoice, the complainant Delivery note/Certificate dated (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: M/s Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Bank of Patiala & others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Sachin Sharma, Mr. Rabhi Sharma & Ms. Nirmala Devi, Advocates, for the petitioner. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. petitioner – M/s Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. assails 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Redressal Commission (NCDRC), vide which r petitioner challenging order dated 08.08.2018 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Appeal 84/2018 has been dismissed. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are tha firm is running its business under the name & style Auto Care Pvt. Ltd.’ and is an authorized dealer of Eicher Motors Ltd. 16.09.2008, complainant/respondent No.4 heavy commercial vehicle i.e. a truck make ‘Eicher’ of vehicle apart from sale invoice, the complainant Delivery note/Certificate dated 16.09.2008 as well as temporary number. FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH WP-11424-2026 (O&M) ate of Decision: 17.04.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL RAMESH KUMARI r. Sachin Sharma, Mr. Rabhi Sharma & Ms. Nirmala Devi, M/s Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. assails order dated ) passed by the National Consumer Disputes vide which revision petition filed by the 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-16) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Appeal A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are that the is running its business under the name & style of ‘M/s Swami and is an authorized dealer of Eicher Motors Ltd. On espondent No.4 – Avtar Singh had purchased a . a truck make ‘Eicher’. At the time of purchase of vehicle apart from sale invoice, the complainant was also handed over a 16.09.2008 as well as temporary number. order dated National Consumer Disputes filed by the ) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Appeal t the of ‘M/s Swami On purchased a . At the time of purchase was also handed over a 16.09.2008 as well as temporary number. VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.21 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) 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/ (O&M) ( 2 ) However, in the said Delivery note/Certificate, engine number came to be written incorrectly. The complainant got the vehicle registered and started plying the same of the trips when the complainant went to Rajasthan, his vehicle was checked Rajasthan Police impounded his truck as the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle did not match with the registration certificate. The complainant while asserting that it was committed by the petitioner in mentioning the engine number incorrectly which led to erroneous mention of engine number in Registration Certificate and consequent impounding of his truck loaded with suffered losses, filed a complaint before the Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) seeking damages. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum complaint vide order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation cost order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was challenged before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) complainant seeking enhancement as well as by the petitioner seeking The SCDRC vide its order dated 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/-. Even the litigation expenses were enhanced from Rs.10,000/ to Rs.25,000/-. However, in the said Delivery note/Certificate, one of the alphabets of the engine number came to be written incorrectly. The complainant got the started plying the same for transport purposes. On one of the trips when the complainant went to Rajasthan, his vehicle was checked Rajasthan Police impounded his truck as the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle did not match with the registration certificate. it was on account of the initial mistake n mentioning the engine number incorrectly which led to erroneous mention of engine number in Registration Certificate loaded with perishable goods that he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes seeking damages. Redressal Forum while allowing the complaint vide order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P-15) ordered the on account of damages apart from on account of litigation cost. The said order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was challenged before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) by the ng enhancement as well as by the petitioner seeking vide its order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-16) dismissed the appeal (Appeal No.84 of 2018) filed by the petitioner, whereas the appeal (Appeal No.88 of 2018) filed by the complainant/respondent No.4 came to be allowed and the compensation was enhanced from Rs.25,000/- . Even the litigation expenses were enhanced from Rs.10,000/ one of the alphabets of the engine number came to be written incorrectly. The complainant got the On one of the trips when the complainant went to Rajasthan, his vehicle was checked Rajasthan Police impounded his truck as the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle did not match with the registration certificate. the initial mistake n mentioning the engine number incorrectly which led to erroneous mention of engine number in Registration Certificate perishable goods that he er Disputes allowing the ordered the apart from The said order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was challenged by the ng enhancement as well as by the petitioner seeking 16) dismissed the appeal (Appeal No.84 of 2018) filed by the petitioner, whereas /respondent No.4 to . Even the litigation expenses were enhanced from Rs.10,000/- VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.21 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) 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. (O&M) ( 3 ) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P petitioner preferred a revision petition before the National Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed vide 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-17), which is Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 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 in the sale invoice to the complainant. It has been submitted that the error, if any, in the registration certificate had apparently crept in on account of negligence of the registration authorities or that of the complainant himself and as such, 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. We have considered the aforesaid submission impugned orders. We find that at the time of delivery of vehicle, the petitioner had handed over 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 initially said mistake came to be perpetuated further in the registration certificate and consequently, the vehicle came to be impounded when the same was checked by the Rajasthan Police, which apparently led to harassment and e complainant. In view of the said factual position, the petitioner 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-16), the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the National Consumer , which was dismissed vide impugned order , which is being assailed herein. submitted that the Consumer Fora fell in in accepting the complaint filed by complainant/respondent No.4 and in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas the engine and in the sale invoice furnished by the submitted that the error, if any, in the registration certificate had apparently crept in on account of negligence of or that of the complainant himself and as such, the petitioner could not have been burdened with the compensation. It has further been submitted that in any case since even the complaint was filed belatedly, the same ought not to have been entertained. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also gone through of vehicle, the petitioner had handed over the Delivery note/Certificate as well as temporary number to the complainant, wherein admittedly the engine number was came to be mentioned incorrectly. initially at the petitioner’s end that urther in the registration certificate the vehicle came to be impounded when the same was checked by the Rajasthan Police, which apparently led to harassment and In view of the said factual position, the petitioner the Consumer order Fora fell in and in and rnished by the submitted that the error, if any, in the registration certificate had apparently crept in on account of negligence of the petitioner could not have been burdened with the compensation. It has filed s and have also gone through of vehicle, the petitioner had handed over the Delivery note/Certificate as well as temporary number to the complainant, wherein admittedly the engine number was came to be mentioned incorrectly. petitioner’s end that urther in the registration certificate the vehicle came to be impounded when the same was checked by the Rajasthan Police, which apparently led to harassment and In view of the said factual position, the petitioner VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.21 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) 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 (O&M) ( 4 ) cannot shift the blame entirely to the registration authorities as initially the had been committed at the petitioner’s end. 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. As such, it does not to raise any such objection at this belated stage when the matter has already been adjudicated by the three forums. find that the reasoning assigned by the Redressal Commission as well as by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in revision is well founded. In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction so as to assail the said orders 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 M/s Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, SC 422, while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: 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. Supervisory jurisdiction is error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or cannot shift the blame entirely to the registration authorities as initially the had been committed at the petitioner’s end. 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 not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise any such objection at this belated stage when the matter has already reasoning assigned by the District Consumer Disputes ommission as well as by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal is well founded. In any case, the scope of 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 is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there in the instant case. M/s Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, , while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 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 227 of the 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 Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or cannot shift the blame entirely to the registration authorities as initially the 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 lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise any such objection at this belated stage when the matter has already Disputes ommission as well as by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal is well founded. In any case, the scope of would be very there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there in the instant case. M/s Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, , while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.21 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11424-2026 (O&M) 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 (O&M) ( 5 ) 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 exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set 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 Examining the impugned order/s in the light of ratio of law Garment Craft’s case (supra), we do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order/s so as to warrant any interference jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 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 rcised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is 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 court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” in the light of ratio of law laid down in M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the any interference in exercise of writ Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the in exercise of writ Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.21 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document