Abacus Eterprises (HUF) vs Sanju Sharma

Heard.

The District Forum appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 08.02.2018 allowed the complaint, inter alia holding that:

"9. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the concerted view that OPs are liable:-

i. To pay the penalty amount i.e. Rs. 1,04,240/- (42,840 + 61,400) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment by the complainant to the Income Tax Department.

ii. To pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and humiliation caused to the complainant;

iii. to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as the cost of litigation."

(para 9 of the Order)

The opposite party appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 10.04.2018 dismissed the appeal in limine, inter alia holding that:

"...7. This argument is devoid of any force. It is alleged by complainant that she availed the services of OP as per representation of Vigyan Arora. It is no where alleged that she did not avail the services of OP and did not make the payments to OP from time to time. So it is clear that there is relationship of consumer and service provider in between them. Complainant was Principal and was Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the school. She was in active correspondence with OP. In notice dated 24.10.2016 sent by her counsel it was alleged that complainant availed it's services, but, OP did not controvert those averments. Further appellant/OP has failed to prove that complete data was not supplied in time. No document has been produced to show that complainant was ever asked to supply complete data or informed that data was not complete. Mere averments cannot take place of evidence. It is opined by Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.) MS (Ortho) vs. S. Ramanujam 2009 (7) SCC 130 and Hon'ble National Commission expressed in M/s JCB India Ltd Vs. M/s Chandan Traders & Ors. decided on 19.02.2015 that fact is to be specifically pleaded and proved, which OP has miserably failed to prove. So these arguments are of no avail. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect and rightly allowed the complaint. Appellant/OP cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because they are based on altogether different facts. In one case the dispute was with trust, in one case the agreement was with one person and third person filed a complaint without any authority and in one case aggrieved person did not come forward for the compensation.

8 As a sequel to above discussion, impugned order dated 08.02.2018 cannot be set aside. Resultantly appeal is hereby dismissed in limine."

(Para 7 & 8 of the Order)

This revision has been filed by the opposite party under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 10.04.2018 of the State Commission.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

Section 21 (b) of the Act is as below:

".....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."

The State Commission's Order dated 10.04.2018 is well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible.

There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.

The revision petition is dismissed.