AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2821 of 1999 dated 21.01.2014 arising out of order dated 26.04.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ballia (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 140 of 1998.
The facts of the case in brief, according to the petitioner/opposite party, are that the petitioner/complainant registered for allotment of a residential plot in Avas Vikas Colony, Ballia with the respondent on 17.03.1980 by paying a registration fee of Rs 5,000/-. Following a draw of lots, plot number 2B-111 was allotted to the petitioner/complainant and allotment letter issued on 30.02.1992. The petitioner deposited Rs 5,000/- on 01.04.1980 and Rs 2,000/- on 01.12.1985. It is contended that on these deposits he was entitled to interest by the respondent @ 6%. The petitioner/complainant defaulted in making payment despite being allotted a plot and after adjustment of the interest on the deposit made, was required to further deposit Rs 1,92,555/- by 30.11.1992 with interest @ 18% p.a. for the period of delay. The respondent deposited Rs 2,12,839/- by 30.11.1992 along with 18% interest thereon but possession was given on 30.03.1997, after a lapse of 3 ½ years. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service of the respondents, the respondent then filed complaint no 140/1998 before the District Forum which was decided on contest in favour of the petitioner and it was ordered that the respondent/opposite party pay within two months, interest @ 18% on the deposited amount of Rs 1,92,555/- from 06.08.1993 to 10.03.1997 along with Rs 1,000/- towards mental agony and Rs 500/- litigation costs. Aggrieved, the petitioner/opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission which vide order dated 21.01.2014 partially allowed the appeal and reduced the interest to 6% and set aside the compensation and costs imposed by the District Forum. This order is impugned before this Commission.
The petitioner’s case is that the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside since she has herself paid interest @ 18% on delayed installments towards the plot allotted to her. The State Commission disregarded the reply/counter affidavit filed and based its order on conjectures and surmises. According to the petitioner, delay in delivery and registration of the plot amounted to deficiency in service for which compensation was valid. She contends that there was delay on part of the respondent in handing over possession despite all installments being paid with interest. Delay in possession has to be computed from after the date of payment of final installment. The order of the State Commission is assailed on the ground that it was based on vague and ambiguous instructions of the respondent/authorities and was against settled law that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to grant reliefs claimed by the respondents. The order according to the petitioner does not spell out reasons regarding the quantum of interest awarded and therefore it is prayed to be set aside. It is prayed that 18% interest for the delay in handing over the possession be awarded.
On behalf of the respondent/opposite party it has been argued that the District Forum did not appreciate that the petitioner had defaulted in making timely payments with respect to the allotment of the plot as per the Rules of the respondent and was therefore required to pay interest on the delayed payments. The order of the District Forum was therefore rightly modified by the State Commission.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record.
The finding of the District Forum was as below:
The Opposite party has filed show cause in which it is said that the petitioner shall not get interest amount and it is also said that in giving late possession of the plot is not due to fault of the opposite party. So far as the question of payment details is concerned, it is clear that the petitioner between 04.02.1993 to 06.08.1993 has made the payment and when the opposite party is demanding interest on his payable amount then the petitioner also has a right to ask for interest on her amount.
… it is clear that after making of full payment the possession was given after 3 ½ years. By doing so, the petitioner has to spend more for purchase of various articles of construction of house. In the shape of expenses an amount of Rs 500 be got paid by the Opposite party to the petitioner.
The State Commission, however, held as under:
The impugned judgment perused and from its perusal it is clear that till 06.08.1993 an amount of Rs.1,92,645/- was deposited but the possession was given on 10.03.1997 and this amount remained deposited in the account of the appellant. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are that they gave the possession at a belated stage because she did not deposit the amount of installments as per rule and they did not commit any negligence in handing over the possession of the plot since the possession is given on 10.03.1997 which is after three years of the completion. Therefore is such circumstances, payment of 6% interest per annum on the amount of Rs.1,92,555/- deposited by the petitioner in place of 18% shall be justified because due to non-payment of the installments on due dates, delay occurred in giving the possession. Therefore, in such a circumstances it will be justified that from the date of deposit of Rs.1,92,555/- by the petitioner till the date of giving the possession 6% per annum interest be given. And it will be justified that order for Rs.1000/- as mental agony Rs.500/- as litigation expenses be set aside. On the basis of above discussions, the appeal is partly allowed.
From the record it is evident that there was delay on the part of the petitioner/complainant in making the necessary payments as mandated under the relevant Rules under which the plot was allotted to the petitioner. It is also evident that the respondent/opposite party condoned the delays and accepted the payments with interest and proceeded to hand over possession of the plot allotted. The District Forum ordered the payment of interest @ 18% with compensation and litigation cost. The State Commission has partially allowed the appeal with the modification that the interest be @ 6% and has set aside the compensation and cost on the ground that the respondent delayed giving possession because the petitioner did not deposit the instalments in time as per Rules.
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. The same grounds were urged as well before 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.