AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh,Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition ( RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents, as detailed above, under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 12.12.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal ( FA) No. 27 of 2009 in which order dated 06.11.2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 292 of 2008 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2012 of the State Commission.
Petitioners have challenged the said order dated 12.12.2012 of the State Commission inter alia on the following grounds :
(a) Respondent No.3 has not joined the proceedings before the District Forum who was necessary party to the Complaint.
(b) Ashok Kumar who presented the demand draft through Punjab National Bank on 18.05.2007 has not been made a party to the complaint before the District Forum.
(c) Respondent no1 is not a Consumer under Consumer Protection Act.
(d) Direction to the Petitioner to pay the amount of draft along with litigation cost is wrong when the relief claimed in CC No. 292 of 2008 was mainly against respondent no.2 and more so when respondent no.1 has not claimed any relief from the Petitioner herein.
(e) Petitioner was under a statutory duty to credit the amount of demand draft in the name of account holder of the demand draft prepared by one bank and received the same through another bank.
Heard both sides.
It is contended by the Petitioner that they have rightfully paid the amount of the draft in question as name of the Payee, which was changed from Radhey Marble and Granites to Ashok Kumar, was duly authenticated by both the signatories of State Bank of Patiala who issued the draft. It is further stated that payment of draft in question was made through clearing to Punjab National Bank where Ashok Kumar may be having the account.
On the other hand, respondent no.1 contends that State Bank of Patiala i.e. respondent no.2 has denied having made any such correction and this is duly recorded in para 9 of the order of the State Commission. Respondent no.1 further contends that due to the action of the petitioner in making payment to wrongful person i.e. Ashok Kumar instead of Radhey Marble and Granites i .e. their supplier, they suffered a loss because they had to again make the payment of amount of Rs.71,841/- to Radhe Marble and Granites and this is also recorded in para 10 of the order of the State Commission. It is contended by the Petitioner that in his complaint, respondent no.1 has sought relief against State Bank of Patiala for refund of said amount of Rs.71,841/-. However, it is seen that relief was also sought against OP No.2 to issue non payment advice after the said demand draft has not been credited in the account of OP No.3
We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission and other relevant records. State Commission has observed that Petitioner did not seek advice of the issuing bank i.e. respondent no.2 herein to confirm whether draft has been issued in favour of Ashok Kumar and whether cutting was attested by them or not. According to State Commission, amount should not have been paid by Petitioner without confirming the facts relating to cutting and name of Payee and hence State Commission has imputed deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner.
No substantive law point(s) have been raised. As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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.”
We find no infirmity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.