Sanjiv Bhattacharya vs Debjyoti Bhattacharjee

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section ­­­21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against impugned order dated 29.03.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 800 of 2014. In this appeal, the Petitioner/ Complainant appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 25.06.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Pgs., Barasat (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 520 of 2013.

For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Vide order dated 13.02.2019, the Legal Heirs of the deceased complainant Sanjib Bhattacharya were substituted.

The brief relevant facts of the case are that the Complainant was in need of a personal four-wheeler and booked a Maruti Zen vehicle at the premises of the Opposite Party (OP). Initially, the Complainant paid Rs.60,000/- through a cheque dated 07.12.2011 and booked a Maruti Zen. However, despite the cheque being duly encashed on 09.12.2012, the OP failed to deliver the vehicle as agreed. Instead, the OP delivered an old, color faded golden Maruti Zen to the Complainant. He rejected it due to pending road tax payments and negative feedback from their automobile mechanic. However, the OP neither provided the vehicle or addressed his concerns. Subsequently, he sent a legal notice on 26.08.2013. but no prompt a resolution was made. Consequently, feeling aggrieved by these actions, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. 250 of 2013 before the District Forum, sought relief amounting to Rs.15,81,000/- on various heads.

In response, the OP filed a reply before the District Forum and denied all the material allegation. According to OP, the Complainant initially received a Maruti 800 vehicle with registration No. WB 26C 4005 on 05.12.2011 at a fixed rate of Rs.65,000/-, by depositing Rs.101/-. Subsequently, on 07.12.2011, he opted to exchange this vehicle for a Maruti Zen with Regn No. WB 02M 3753, accepting all related documentation, and agreed to pay the remaining balance of Rs.4,900/-. However, the Complainant sold the Maruti Zen to a third party, without fulfilling the payment commitment or notifying the OP. Therefore, the OP requested the dismissal of the case, contesting the Complainant's claims.

The District Forum in its Order dated 25.06.2007 dismissed the complaint with the following order:

“The well accepted principle that "man may lie but not the document" is found to have its direct applicability in the present facts and circumstances of the case specially in view of the annexure "B" referred to above together with the pleadings of the parties and the evidence which appear to be oath -vs- oath. In the circumstances, the highest reliance is placed upon annexure "B" which according to us depicts the correct picture of the transactions that took place between the parties.

Therefore, having regard to entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the clear view that the complainant has failed to establish his case by production of acceptable evidence of legal character which on the other side has been belied by the case put forward by the O.P duly substantiated by oral and specially the documentary evidence discussed herein above.

In the result, the instant petition of complaint, is liable to fall and fails accordingly.

Hence

Ordered,

that the case be and the same Is dismissed on contest without any cost against the O.P.”

Being aggrieved by the Order of the learned District forum, the Complainant/Appellant filed Appeal No. 800 of 2014 before the State Commission. The learned State Commission vide order dated 29.03.2017 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following observation: -

“We are therefore, unable to appreciate the merit of the case of such an untenable demand of compensation.

In view of the facts and circumstances, narrated above, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum does not deserve any intervention from our end.

Hence,

Ordered

that the Appeal stands dismissed. The decision of the Ld. District Forum is affirmed. No order as to costs”

Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the State Commission, the Complainant/ Petitioner has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no. 1982 of 2017.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the both the Parties. Perused the entire material on record inter-alia Orders of both the fora.

It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which is pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited scope on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 are clear. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, has was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under: -

"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

Similarly, in a recent the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally  or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

Based on foregoing deliberations and established precedents, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.