AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
This Revision Petition No. 2761 of 2015 challenges the impugned order of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘the State Commission’) dated 18.09.2015. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No.524 of 2009 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siwan (‘the District Forum’) dated 05.11.2009.
Briefly, the case of the Respondent No.1/Complainant is that she deposited Rs. 875/- and Rs.l60/- to the Petitioner for opening Postal Life Insurance Scheme but it was not started. Being aggrieved, she filed a complaint before the District Forum.
The Petitioner could not appear as no notice was served to him. Hence, ex-party order was passed against the Petitioner. However, the Respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared and contested the case stating that the complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party and the complainant is not a 'Consumer' under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned District Forum, vide Order dated 05.11.2009, directed the Petitioner/OP1 and Respondent No.3/OP3 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- within two months otherwise 15% interest will be payable. As the main responsibility lies on the Petitioner/OP1 to compensate the Complainant as he did not deposit the collected amount in the Department for which the policy was not issued. Thus, it was ordered that the Respondents No.2&3/OP2&3 may recover the ordered amount from the Petitioner/ OP1 and pay the ordered amount to the Complainant in case the same is not paid within the period of two months.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 18.09.2015 directed as follows:
“Having considered the submissions of appellant, respondent Post Office, Siwan and Superintendent of Post Office, Siwan and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the District Forum has considered all aspects of the matter in right perspective. The appellant accepted the amount of premium of Postal Insurance Scheme from the complainant and issued receipts. He was not a competent authority to issue Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant. The respondent No. 2 & 3 seems to be the competent authorities who could not issue Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant. Appellant only is not a service provider but respondent No.2 & 3 are service provider and the complainant is a consumer of the respondent No.2 &3. Complainant cannot be a 'consumer' of appellant only. When the appellant issued receipts of the amount deposited, he cannot be a fully responsible for non-issuance of Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant. The District Forum has rightly directed the respondent No. one and three to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- within two months otherwise 15% interest will be payable. The amount so accepted has allegedly not been deposited in the account of the Postal Department. For that, the complainant cannot be suffered a loss. We do not find any illegality or error in the District Forum order and there is no cogent reason to defer with the observation of the District Forum. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.”
Hence, the present Revision Petition.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Petitioner was working as Development Officer and Postal Department assigned him duty to collect the money from the persons who are willing to have Postal Life Insurance (PLI) and issue them receipt. The Petitioner deposited the said amount collected by him to the Postal Dept vide letter No.LFO-PLI/05-06 dated 29.08.2005. He, therefore, asserted that the Petitioner has no role to issue any policy to anyone and he shifted the responsibility on the postal department. He sought the impugned order be set aside.
The Respondent No.1 was exempted from personal appearance vide order dated 13.02.2018 by this Commission. However, she has not filed any brief synopsis of arguments despite directions. The learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 4 reiterated the facts of case and raised objections in the reply filed before the District Forum and argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission.
I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and the State Commission as well as the arguments advanced. The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after hearing both parties, determined that the District Forum's order required no intervention. This was primarily because the amount so accepted by the Petitioner has not been deposited in the account of the Postal Department. However, the petitioner alleged that he deposited the amount vide letter No.LFO-PLI/05-06 dated 29.08.2005 with the postal department. This order is now being challenged at the revision stage.
It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction 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 learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision 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.
In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-
“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, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has 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 the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.