Revisional Jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions to be exercised carefully

 

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi in a recent case of Sunil Kumar Maity V/S State Bank of India and Anr. .Civil Appeal 432 Of 2022 decided on 21^th Jan 2022 made a very strong comment against the order of NCDRC  and explained the concept of Revisional Power to the courts

“It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the 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 .’

Lets check with the Revisional provision in the Act

Section 21(b) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

 

It is pertinent to mention that the same provision exists now in the new Act Consumer protection act 2019 too

 

58 (1)(b) in Consumer Protection Act 2019

“to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”

Facts of the case ;

Sunil Kr. Maity had a saving account number in a bank since January, 2000 and subsequently account number was  changed on  24.02.2010. The complainant  went to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- in the bank on 15.09.2012 when bank staff informed him that the account number had again been changed and wrote a different account number on his passbook.Sunil Maity deposited Rs 500/- in the account given . On 16.01.2013, the complainant deposited a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on SBI but later on 11.12.2013 found  balance of Rs. 59/- only.On enquiry the bank informed the complainant that there was another customer by the name Sunil Maity whose account number was wrongly given to the complainant The said Sunil  Maity had withdrawn the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively from that account number.

Judgments by District Forum &State Commission

The Consumer Forum made order in favour of complainant  The SCDRC in appeal  upheld the order of the Consumer Forum except to the extent of fine imposed. A revision petition filed before NCDRC by the Bank

Judgment by NCDRC

NCDRC dismissed the complaint and suggested to approach the civil court for relief it being a complicated question requiring evidence

SC Held -

·         The National Commission had called for a report on the whole matter from the SBI in the form of six more evidences at the stage of revision which was not justified and not a procedure in revision matters

·         Reports were sought from the officers who were already given an opportunity at both the levels below to be heard

·         Order 41 Rule 27 of Code Of Civil Procedure explains when can additional evidence be taken as hereunder-

"The party has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed’

NCDRC grossly erred in observing that the complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and filing application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963,

Disagreeing with this approach, the bench restored the order passed by State Commission.

Background of the concept of Revision in Earlier Judgments

Various earlier Judgments on the issue are relevant to understand  the difference between the APPEAL and REVISION before choosing the remedy for redressal of grievance

Appeal gives the consumer to open his case before the higher court on all counts –facts of the case ,law applied and evidence recorded .Every thing is to be judged by the appellant court as to whether lower court has considered all the material placed on record and had applied the law laid down in correct manner .However complainant cannot educe any new facts or evidence at this stage ,can only emphasize  for the facts earlier said which could not be considered by the lower court This is the general principal of law .

Revision is mainly on the point of jurisdiction of the court /forum and higher court is not to look into the matter in detail about facts ,evidence etc .This remedy can be invoked even before any order passed by the lower court/forum if forum had no juridction to deal with the case and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction ,higher court may issue appropriate directions also to the lower court /forum

The difference between appeal and revision has been clarified by the apex court on number of occasions ..Supreme court had defined the distinction as back as in 1995 while dealing in the matter of Lachman Dass V Santhokh singh [1995]4 SCC 201 wherein it was held;

“An appeal is a continuation of proceedings wherein the entire proceedings are again left open for consideration by the appellant authority .But in the case of revision ,it has no power to reassess or reappreciate the evidence unless the statute expressly provides ”

The same version is repeated by Calcutta high court in the matter of  Ajay Bhandra V State Consumer Dispute Redressed Commission ,West Bengal reported at 2002CTJ 505 CP 

And also by the Bombay High Court in the matter of R B Upadhyaya V State Commission for Consumer Dispute Mumbai which has made  two things clear

Firstly  a final order passed under this act is revisable under section 17 and also appealable under section 15 of the act .

Secondly there is a clear distinction between the revisional power and appellant power as already discussed above.

Supreme Court in the above referred case of Sunil Kumar Maity has confirmed its earlier stand explaining obce again that Revisonary jurisdiction carves limitation of the commission to act within the provisions without going beyond it.

This judgment is a mile stone in the consumer juriprudencse keeping in view the same provision under the new act 2019 too under section 58(1)9b)as reproduced above

Dr Prem Lata

(Ex-Member,Conusmer Commission ,Delhi )

Legal Head ,VOICE  

 

Previous

Next