M/S. Nau Nidh Finance Co. & Anr vs Sukhwinder Kaur

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners M/s. Nau Nidh Finance Co. Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 30.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.545 of 2016.

Brief facts of the case are that on 07.10.2013, respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,31,500/- in the opposite party Finance Firm. On 01.5.2014, another deposit of sum of Rs.2,94,000/- was made. On 07.06.2014, complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.50,000/-. In October, 2015, complainant demanded return of the remaining amount i.e. Rs.5,75,500/- along with interest of 18% as promised by the opposite party Finance Firm. However, neither the amount nor the interest was repaid by the opposite party. Hence complainant filed the complaint.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga, (in short 'the District Forum') has allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,75,500/- along with 9% p.a. interest and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

Aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2016 of the District Forum, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2017 of the State Commission.

Hence, the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel stated that both the fora below have relied upon the passbook submitted by the complainant and the affidavit of the complainant, whereas the petitioner/opposite party has claimed that passbook has been forged by the complainant as the passbook does not bear any signature of the opposite party or any seal of the opposite party. The learned counsel drew attention to the other similar passbooks, which have been filed by opposite party, which contained seal of the opposite party on the first page of the passbook. Learned counsel argued that this point was raised in the written statement, however, the same has not been considered by both the fora below. The learned counsel further submitted that the cases of fraud and forgery cannot be adjudicated upon by the consumer fora, therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed at the very first stage.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. First of all, both the fora below have given concurrent finding and have allowed the complaint of the complainant. The scope under the revision petition is very limited against the concurrent finding of fact by the fora below as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following case:-

(1) Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

"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."

(2) Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the following:

"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them 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 fact both the fora below have expressed the view that the amounts were deposited by the complainant with the opposite party and therefore, the opposite party was liable to pay those amounts to the complainant. This Commission cannot reassess the facts in the light of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company (supra) Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others (supra). Even otherwise, the petitioner has not placed any document or any evidence to prove that the passbook was a forged one. It is seen that no FIR has been lodged by the petitioner against the complainant for allegedly forging the passbook in question.

The petitioner has also not stated that the passbook Account No.1020 of the complainant does not belong to the complainant and somebody else has this account number. The petitioner has not claimed that this Account No.1020 does not exist in their ledger. It has also not been explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how did the complainant get the passbook of the opposite party company. The basic issue is that if the passbook has been forged and the complaint case was filed against the opposite party, why did the opposite party not file any FIR or criminal complaint against the complainant which would have strengthened the case of the opposite party. Mere denial of documents without filing any supportive evidence cannot be accepted against the positive evidence of the other party.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 30.03.2017, which calls for interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.1384 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.