M/S. Shubham Infotech vs Ganga Sagar Tiwari

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.1.2018 in Appeal No.1347/2016 of the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 15.6.2016 in complaint No.163/2015 of the respondent.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that they were never served of the complaint and no finding to this effect that the petitioner was properly served had been given either by the District Forum or by the State Commission. It is further submitted that there is a jurisdictional error since the complaint had been filed in a wrong jurisdiction.

Under the provisions of Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission has a limited jurisdiction. It is not required to reassess and re-appreciate the evidence to reach a different conclusion. If there is a concurrent finding on the fact, the same cannot be upset in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Act. This Commission can interfere only when there is a miscarriage of justice and the findings are based on no evidence or there is an illegality in the impugned order. The Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed 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 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."

As regards the contention of the petitioner that there is no finding of the fact that the petitioner was not duly served of the complaint is concerned, from perusal of the order of the District Forum dated 15.6.2016 and of State Commission dated 29.1.2018 it is apparent that both the Fora below on relying on the proceedings before them held that the petitioner did not attend the proceedings before the Fora below despite service of the process on it. There is no contention on behalf of the petitioner that the address given in the complaint was not the address on which it was situated rather the petitioner itself has given the same address which had been given by the respondent in his complaint. The finding to the effect that the petitioner was duly served of the complaint, is based on the facts available before the Fora below and no evidence has been brought to our notice which can suggest that the service was not affected on the petitioner.

As regards the contention that the District Forum before which the complaint was filed did not have the jurisdiction is concerned, this being the legal issue, findings had also been recorded by the Fora below. Since no contention has been raised by the petitioner, being ex-parte before the District Forum, there is no discussion and no evidence is led and no argument has been raised to this contention. Even otherwise, from the record it is apparent that there is no jurisdictional error in the present case.

In view of the concurrent finding on the facts of this case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.