Punjab National Bank vs Manoj Gattani

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member

This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 04.05.2016 in FA/2015/597 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) upholding order dated 23.09.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir, Chhattisgarh (in short, the ‘District Forum’).

The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner/opposite party, a bank, had transacted a RTGS money transfer of Rs.4,25,000/- on the directions of the respondent/complainant on 01.11.2014 in favour of Jaypee Cement, Bhilai in their Axis Bank Branch Office, Durg, Chhattisgarh. The transfer was, however, not effected due to a bonafide mistake of the petitioner bank in entering an incorrect account number and while the RTGS request was debited from the respondent’s account it was wrongly credited into the account of M/s Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Dehradun instead. The error in the transaction according to the petitioner is on the part of Axis Bank who it is claimed has not been made a party in the petition rendering the petition liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. The petitioner attempted to resolve the matter through several efforts with Axis Bank, including the filing of a complaint with the Reserve Bank of India. However, the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- was not immediately returned by either Axis Bank or M/s Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Dehradun. However, the sum of Rs 4,25,000/- was finally credited to the respondent on 10.07.2015. The District Forum which was approached ordered in favour of the respondent. Its order was appealed against by the petitioner before the State Commission. The same was, however, dismissed by the impugned order. Hence the present revision petition.

The petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission on the grounds that the respondent/complainant is not a “consumer” under the Act since he had a current account for business purposes and that there was no deficiency in service on its part. Non-joinder of necessary parties is alleged as the liability for the failed RTGS transaction is sought to be fastened on Axis Bank. It is contended that the petitioner had immediately initiated an enquiry and taken up the matter with the collecting bank (Axis Bank) and the fora below failed to appreciate that the liability for the delay was on Axis Bank in recovering the amount from M/s Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd. whose account was with them and was despite its best efforts. It is stated that there was a bonafide mistake in prefixing a zero in the account number which has no adverse effect while transferring the amount through RTGS. It is alleged that the RTGS was settled in the Axis Bank Hub account as there was no mismatch in IFSC code and thereafter the Axis Bank credited the amount in the wrong account. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muni Mahesh Patel, IV (2006) CPJ I (SC) which held that adjudication of disputed factual questions should not be done in summary proceedings. Reliance is also placed on this Commission’s order in M/s Sam Fine O Chem Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India, in CC No. 39 of 2013 dated 12.04.2013 which held that as credit facility was availed for a commercial purpose, the complainant did not qualify as a ‘consumer’ under section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

The respondent contends that the petitioner is liable for deficiency in service since despite the debit of Rs 4,25,000/- from his account and levy of service charge of Rs 29,004/-, the transfer of funds though RTGS was not effected by the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner had admitted before the State Commission that a mistake was made by the petitioner bank in entering the account number. The respondent contends that the issue of the respondent not being a consumer was being raised before this Commission for the first time. It is also averred that he had availed RTGS services through the petitioner and paid the service charges to it, hence the impleadment of Axis Bank as a party was not warranted. In view of there being concurrent findings in his favour, the respondent contends that revision jurisdiction of this Commission is limited as per settled law.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully.

The petitioner’s case is that the error was a bonafide error on its part and that it had made all efforts to restore the wrong crediting of the RTGS amount into the account of the respondent once the error came to light. The liability for this error should be fastened on to the Axis Bank and not on it. It is stated that the lower fora failed to appreciate that the respondent was not a ‘consumer’ under the Act as it was operating a current account for business purposes. Lastly, that the respondent/complainant had not impleaded the Axis Bank before the lower fora and therefore there had been a non-joinder of parties. The respondent’s case, per contra, is that it had availed services from the petitioner against payment of charges and, therefore, the liability of deficiency was entirely that of the petitioner and could not be fastened on to Axis Bank. Therefore, there was no question of non-joinder of necessary parties. There was also admission of its error by the petitioner. It is alleged that the argument that respondent was not a consumer was incorrect. It is argued that a transaction made during the course of a business does not disqualify the respondent from being a ‘consumer’ as it was not debarred under the Act.

The petitioner has challenged concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. Both the fora below have held the petitioner liable for deficiency in service against a service charge levied by way of detailed and reasoned orders. Admittedly, there was an error on part of the petitioner which it claims was bonafide.

From the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidences led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is, therefore, an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse.

This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Company (2011) 11 SCC 269 dated 18.03.2011 has held that:

“23. 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.”

Reiterating this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors (2016) 8 SCC 286 dated 02.08.2016 held:

“17. 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.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2019 in the case of T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019 held as under:

“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

The foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before me in this revision petition. It is also seen that the orders of these fora are based on evidence on record. In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail.

I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.