COMMERCIAL TOYOTA Vs. MUKESH GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi (National Commission), whereby the petitioner's revision petition No.987/2012 has been dismissed.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 3 had preferred a consumer claim before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. The claim of the said respondents was that they had booked a Toyota Qualis with the petitioner. Though the model that they had booked was Euro 1 C-1, and had even paid for the said model, they had been delivered the vehicle with model No. Euro 1 B2, which was a cheaper version of the said vehicle. The vehicle had been purchased on 06.11.2001 whereas the complaint had been preferred on April, 2004. The said respondent- complainants, however, had pleaded in para 7 that the said defect came to their knowledge after one year because the said complainants were not aware about the technical knowledge about the vehicle.

(3.) THE petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the National Commission which has been dismissed. The National Commission observed that the finding of the two Forums below on the issues on merits were findings of fact, based on evidence, and the same cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner's submission that the claim was barred by limitation was dealt with by the National Commission in the following manner:-