Abinath Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Usha & Anr

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Adinath Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 19.07.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.45 of 2015.

Brief facts of the case are that the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 (since deceased and now represented by the LRs.) had entered into an agreement for participating in the Teak Wood Plantation Scheme in the year 1992. A member of the said scheme was required to deposit Rs.300/- and to get Rs.30,000/- after 20 years. Therefore the husband of respondent No.1 deposited Rs.300/- in the year 1992. After the maturity of 20 years, the depositor approached the present petitioners and demanded Rs.30,000/-. But petitioners did not pay any heed to the demand of the member. Therefore, he approached the District Forum by demanding Rs.30,000/- with interest and Rs.12,000/- for mental agony and cost of complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners. However, the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Aurangabad, (in short 'the District Forum') vide its order dated 30.10.2014 passed the following order:-

"A The respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- from 1/12/2012 with 10% interest through D.D. within 30 days to the complainant.

B. And respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.2000/- against the mental agony and against the expenses of this proceeding without 30 days through D.D. to the complainant."

Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal bearing no.45 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 19.07.2016 dismissed the appeal.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents/complainants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.08.2018 passed by this Commission.

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that in the year 2000 an amount of Rs.375/- was refunded to the original member and he has signed the receipt of receiving Rs.375/-. Rs.300/- was the original amount deposited and Rs.75/- was compensation granted to the complainant. The District Forum has not relied upon this receipt and has observed that signature on the receipt does not tally with the actual signature of the complainant. This observation has been made without report of any hand writing expert. Hence, this observation is arbitrary and without any evidence. It has also been observed by the District Forum that the amount of refund has not been paid by a cheque, rather it has been paid by cash and therefore, not authentic. As the amount was small, all the investors were paid by cash because at that time most investors may not be having their bank account. The Teak Wood Sapling Certificate has not been produced by the complainants before the fora below as the same was already deposited with the petitioners when the payment of Rs.375/- was made to the complainant. Neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has looked into this aspect. The fora below have only relied upon the agreement which was, in fact, already rescinded when the amount of Rs.375/- was returned to the complainant. When the petitioners have already refunded Rs.375/- as full and final settlement of the claim of the complainants, there is no justification for ordering payment of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant along with 10% p.a. interest.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. First of all, no paper has been filed by the petitioners/opposite parties to prove that the agreement was cancelled. The District Forum has observed the following in respect of the receipt submitted by the petitioner herein in respect of Rs.375/- :-

"It is true that, the complainant had lodged the complaint on dated 30/1/2013 in respect of deceiving by the respondents, and if the amount will received and by keeping faith by the person, the person should have not filed any false complaint as thing so, the receipt of amount of Rs.375/- and its signature filed by the respondent is not matched with the signature of the complainant, and there attempt to make the false signature, and in reality if the amount will issued, the amount should be issued through cheque not in cash, and it is also not possible that, which person received the amount of 375/- instead of amount of Rs.30,000/- it is not true. Therefore, the evidence of receipt of Rs.375/- and application in English language and signature on that application filed by the respondent is not admissible."

I also agree with the observation of the District Forum that the Petitioner Company should have refunded the amount by way of cheque drawn in favour of the complainant as the payment in cash can always be denied by a person. It is difficult to accept the version of the petitioner in his regard, because the payment is not supported by any proof. So far as the Teak Wood Sapling Certificate is concerned, it is seen that the fora below have not discussed this issue though the same has been raised in the written statement filed by the opposite parties/petitioners. Be that as it may, the fora below have given concurrent finding that the receipt issued by the petitioners /opposite parties for Rs.375/- is not a valid receipt duly signed by the complainant. This Commission cannot reassess the fact against the concurrent finding given by fora below, therefore, it does not matter whether Teak Wood Sapling Certificate was returned or not. Against the concurrent finding of facts given by the fora below, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as this Commission cannot reassess the facts as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, as under:-

"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."

No legal point has been raised in the present revision and the revision petition is only based on the assertion of the petitioners that the facts have not been correctly assessed by the fora below. It has already been seen that this Commission would not like to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts given by the fora below on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company (supra).

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 19.07.2016 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the revision petition No.3194 of 2016 is dismissed.