This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sandeep Verma against the order dated 22.5.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.241 of 2018.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.211 of 2017 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur, (in short ‘District Forum’) alleging that the petitioner had booked a Honda City car 1.5 VX(0) MT (IDTEC), and the sale certificate was issued for this model, but only the regular model was provided by the opposite parties.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for supplying lower model of car.  The complainant preferred an appeal bearing No.241 of 2018 before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.5.2018.

3.      Hence the present revision petition.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the opposite parties have admitted in their written statement that only the regular model was supplied to the complainant.  It is clear from the invoice and the sale certificate as well as from the registration of the vehicle that Honda City car 1.5 VX(0) MT (IDTEC) was allegedly supplied to the complainant.  Thus, there is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and therefore, the complainant is entitled to a higher compensation as the facilities of the specific model i.e. Honda City car 1.5 VX(0) MT (IDTEC) were required by the complainant and these facilities have been denied in the regular model.

5.      I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.  During the arguments, it was clarified by the learned counsel that there was a difference of only Rs.35,000/- in the price of two models.  Registration Certificate is issued by the Government Authority i.e. the Regional Transport Officer and the Registration Certificate also bears the model 105. VX (0) MT (IDTEC).  Learned counsel could not also tell as to on what basis the complainant has alleged that regular model has been supplied to the complainant when all the papers like the sale certificate and the registration certificate mention the model which has been purchased as per the invoice.  No complaint can be sustained on the basis of suspicion. Moreover, the District Forum has already allowed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which seems to be sufficient looking at the price difference of both the models.

6.      Accordingly, I am of the view that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal.  I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 22.05.2018 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the revision petition No.1882 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.