AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1444 of 2018, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
The case of the Complainant/Petitioner is that the he had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/-with Opposite Party No. 3 on the assurance of refund of Rs.40,375/- on maturity. On 25.11.2015, Original Documents related to the deposit were submitted with Opposite Party No.3. However, Opposite Party No. 3 failed to refund the assured amount even after repeated requests by the Complainant. On 10.04.2017, the Complainant sent a legal notice, but it was not replied by either of the Parties. Aggrieved by non-payment of the maturity amount alongwith interest, the Complainant preferred Consumer Complaint No.331/2017 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mysore with following prayer:-
"a) interest at 18% rate from 25/05/2015 till the date of settlement, on the amount of Rs.40,375/-
b) Maturity amount of : Rs.40,375/-
c) Damages for mental agony : Rs. 20,000/-
d) Expenses for visits to the OP : Rs.2,000/-
e) Legal and other expenses : Rs.15,000/-
Total : Rs.77,375/-
The amount calculated above is added with the following prayer:
"The Complaint respectfully pray's this Hon'ble forum that this complaint be kindly allowed and the opposite parties be kindly directed to pay the complainant the amount of Rs.77,375/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand three hundred seventy five only) along with the unpaid interest on maturity amount as claimed and described in para 6(a). to (e), and also further interest at 18% from the date of the order on this complaint if not made within 30 days of the order passed by this honourable forum, along with Rs.100/- fir each day of default. The forum may also please award me such other exemplary damages and relief as it deems fit taking the pitiable circumstances the complainant is placed."
The Complaint was contested by Opposite Party No.1, who filed reply. Opposite Parties Nos.2 & 3 did not file reply. Opposite Party No.1 appeared. Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The District Forum, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and perusing the record observed that the Complainant did not place any material evidence to establish that he had paid Rs.25,000/- to the Opposite Parties, except the legal notice dated 10.04.2017, calling upon the Opposite Parties to refund the maturity sum of Rs.40,375/-. The Complaint was, therefore, dismissed by the District Forum.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed First Appeal No.1444 of 2018 before the State Commission. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and perusing the record, the State Commission held that the Complainant failed to establish that he had deposited Rs.25,000/-. He, however, produced a receipt issued by the Opposite Party, bearing No.628207 dated 26.04.2001, which showed that the Complainant had paid only an annual instalment of Rs.4500/- towards the total deposit amount of Rs.25,000/-. The receipt issued by the Opposite Parties/Respondents is with respect to the allotment of a plot. In case the Complainant wanted to buy the plot, the Opposite Parties were ready to allot the plot, otherwise the Complainant would be paid amount of Rs.40,375/-. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal and upheld the findings of the District Forum.
Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant preferred Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer-
"a) Set aside the Impugned Judgement and Final Order dated 04.01.2021 Passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in Appeal No. 1444/2018.
b) Allow the claim made by the Petitioner in Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Commission,
c) A) pay interest at 18% rate from 25/05/2015 till the date of settlement, on the amount of Rs. 40,375/-
B) Maturity amount of : Rs. 40,375/-
C) Damages for mental agony : Rs. 20,000/-
D) Expenses for visits to the OP : Rs. 2,000/-
F) Legal and other expenses : Rs. 15,000/-
G) Cost of Appeal : Rs.15,000/-
Total : Rs. 92,375/-
d) Pass any such other further order(s) and or directions as this Hon'ble Commission deems fit in the interest of Justice"
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully gone through the record. He submitted that the Fora below failed to appreciate the material evidence submitted by the Petitioner and erroneously dismissed the Complaint and Appeal filed by the Petitioner. It was submitted that the Opposite Parties were under obligation to pay the maturity amount to the Complainant. He further submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 had issued acknowledgement dated 25.05.2015 promising to refund the amount claimed by the Complainant.
Facts of the case are that the Complainant/Petitioner paid Rs.4,550/- to Opposite Party No. 3, vide receipt No.628207 dated 26.04.2001. The Complainant was required to deposit Rs.4,550/-annually upto 2006. Maturity value at the end of the term was Rs.40,375/-. Allegedly, the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount to the Complainant.
Copies of payment receipts filed by the Complainant indicate that he had deposited an amount of Rs.22,750/- with the Opposite Parties. These payment receipts filed by the Petitioner were not filed either before the District Forum or the State Commission. Moreover, the Petitioner has filed the payment receipts, except receipt for Rs.4,550/-, without permission of this Court. In para 13, the District Forum had mentioned that the Petitioner filed payment receipt of Rs.4,550/-dated 26.04.2001 bearing No.OZ/H 628207 towards consideration for a plot. District Forum also recorded that the Petitioner had not placed any material evidence to establish that he had paid Rs.25,000/- to the Opposite Parties. The State Commission also mentioned that the Petitioner had paid only an instalment of Rs.4,550/-. Petitioner relied on the acknowledgement dated 25.05.2015 issued by Opposite Party No.3 promising to refund the full amount to the Petitioner. Acknowledgement dated 25.05.2015 is placed on record at page 46 of the Revision Petition. Copy of this acknowledgement nowhere records that Opposite Party No.3 had promised the Petitioner to refund the amount as alleged by him. There are concurrent findings of fact. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce new evidence at the revisional stage.
Also, Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: -
"13. 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 than 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 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 findings of two fora."
Same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both Fora below. Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision Jurisdiction of this Commission. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.