AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, "the State Commission) dated 29.6.2016 in first appeal No.A/1455/2014.
Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Siliguri alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank inasmuch as that the Bank despite of clearance of the loan did not return the insurance policy which was assigned and submitted with the Bank at the time of taking loan. The complaint was contested. During the pendency of the complaint, the LIC policy was returned to the complainant by the respondent/opposite party No.1. The District Forum vide its order dated 18.11.2014 taking note of the said fact held the opposite party guilty of deficiency in service and directed the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/- besides litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. It was further ordered that if the said amount was not paid within 45 days, the complainant would be entitled to 9% interest on the compensation amount of Rs.1000/- from the date of the order till realization.
Being aggrieved of the meager quantum of compensation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,000/- and further awarded litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. It was observed that if the order of the State Commission was not complied with within 45 days, the total amount of Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest of 9% from the date of default.
The petitioner still being unsatisfied with the amount of compensation has filed the revision petition.
The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is governed by Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it is limited to the extent of any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order of the Fora below. After looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no cause of enhancement of compensation. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.