Shyam Lal Mistri vs M/S. Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. & Anr

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Shyam Lal Mistri against the order dated 09.11.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.1677 of 2011, wherein the order dated 20.10.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short 'the District Forum') passed in consumer complaint has been upheld.

The notice was issued to the respondents for admission hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 was present at the time of hearing on 01.03.2018. However, none was present on behalf of respondent No.1 even after due service to respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.03.2018 of this Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for respondent No.2 were heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the petitioner purchased 70 units of Ind Jyothi 7 year Increment Growth Fund in the year 1990 with maturity period of 7 years. The complainant received payment in the year 1998 by cheque for Rs.14,014/-. Learned counsel further stated that it was promised that the remaining part of the maturity value will be paid after some time. Ultimately, the complainant received Rs.5,327/- in the year 2001 as the cumulative dividend, which was for 24 months period from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1998. Learned counsel stated that this amount was due in the year 1998 and the same has been paid in the year 2001 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest on this amount for roughly three years.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stated that he confirms the payment received by the complainant as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner for investment of Rs.7,000/-in the year 1990. The total amount of Rs.19,341/- has already been received by the complainant, which seems to be a very good return on investment.

I have considered the arguments of parties present and have examined the material on record. First of all a perusal of the order of the District Forum shows that the complainant had suppressed certain information about the payments received in respect of dividend from the Company and his complaint was dismissed as he came to the Forum with unclean hands. The State Commission has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus the fora below have given concurrent finding and the scope under the revision petition is very limited to reassess the facts as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-

(1) Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

"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 that 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 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 finding of two fora."

(2) Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the following:

"23. 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."

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. I agree with the assertion of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the scope under revision petition is very limited in matters where the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts. In the present case, both the fora below have not found substance in the complaint in the light of facts of the case. Facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission at the stage of revision petition in such cases. Even from the point of view of merits, it is seen that the complainant had invested Rs.7000/- in the year 1990 and he has received Rs.14,014/- in the year 1998 and then again Rs.5,327/- in the year 2001.

It is seen from the certificate issued to the complainant as holder of the Ind Jyoti Units that he has opted for Plan B of the Scheme and as per Plan B no dividend was to be paid till redemption of the units. Accordingly, nothing was to be paid to the complainant before the maturity of the units and later on the payment has been made and there is no deficiency on the part of the respondent. Sufficient return on investment has been received by the petitioner/complainant and I do not find any ground to entertain the present revision petition, which has been filed against concurrent finding of the fora below. Accordingly, based on the above discussion, the revision petition No.1417 of 2013 is dismissed at the admission stage.