AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal Nos. FA/2019/171 of 2019 and FA/2019/179 of 2019 dated 21.06.2019 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Durg, Chhattisgarh (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 17/248 of 2017 dated 07.02.2019.
The brief facts of the case as per the revision petitioner are that the petitioner has been directed to pay the respondent Rs 4,95,982/- towards los caused due to incomplete work of the flat along with interest @ 6% from the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 10.04.2017 within 45 days, failing which @ 9%; Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs 2,000/- as litigation expenses in Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/248 of 2017 by the District Forum, Durg vide its order dated 07.02.2019. His appeals before the State Commission FA/2019/171 and FA/2019/179 were disallowed while reducing the compensation for mental agony to Rs 25,000/- vide order dated 21.06.2019.
The petitioner’s case is that the order of the District Forum is contrary to facts and law and that the State Commission’s order has not adjudicated his appeal on merits. The facts of the dispute are that the respondent had engaged the petitioner through an agreement dated 19.06.2015 to execute certain civil works in his flat allotted by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board at Taalpuri, Bhilai at an estimated cost of Rs 8,21,000/-. The petitioner executed the works except white washing estimated at Rs 10,000/- and handed over the flat with the keys to the respondent on 10.02.2017. The respondent filed a police complaint and also issued a legal notice alleging deficiency in service. The respondent approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service as works agreed upon had not been completed. The petitioner contested this claim stating that all items of work agreed had been completed and cited the illness of his sister which required him to attend to her medical treatment in hospital as a result of which the whitewashing could not be completed. The petitioner relied upon the report of architect Shri M.K. Yadava of Shrishti Associates to buttress his assertion that the work agreed upon had not been completed in full except for the value of Rs 3,15,018/- and charging Rs 4,95,982/- of the contracted amount as a fraudulent charge. The respondent’s consumer complaint before the District Forum came to be allowed vide order dated 17.07.2018 as below:
“1. The opposite party will pay a sum of Rs.4,95,982/- towards the loss caused due to incomplete work of the flat and 6% annual interest from the complaint filing date dated 10.04.2017 to payment dated to the complainants.
9% annual interest will be payable on the said amount from the order dated to the payment date, in case, if the payment of the relief amount was not made within 45 days.
The opposite party will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days of the order dated.”
The petitioner’s appeal against this order before the State Commission in FA/2019/171 was dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2019 subject to modification of compensation for mental agony being reduced to Rs 25,000/-. The State Commission’s order reads as under:
“25. The document annexure A – 14 has been submitted by the complainants, which is prepared by Shri M K Yadav, Architect of Srishti Associates. The assessment of the said complete work is assessed of Rs.3,15,018/- in the said report and photographs of flat and bills of the incomplete work have been submitted by the complainants, on the ground of which, it is evident that the work was not completed by the opposite party, for the another contract was paid by the complainants to complete the work. Assessment report of Srishti Associates is submitted by the complainants, where it is stated in details that how much assessment have been done of which work of the opposite party. The bills submitted by the opposite party, proves that the material was purchased by the opposite party, but it is not clear that in which flat it is used off. No assessment report was submitted by the opposite party. Only this objection was raised by the opposite party that the report submitted by the complainants, is inaccurate, but it is not mentioned that on what grounds the report is inaccurate. If the opposite party had wished, he too could have submitted a report by evaluating his work done, but no such report has been submitted by the opposite party. Therefore, in the evidence, the opposite party stated that the report is inaccurate, is not acceptable.
In the light of the above discussion, we have come to this conclusion, that the deficiency in service was made by the opposite party by not completing the construction within time. In this regard, the discussion made by the District Forum concluding that it is entirely appropriate, where is no irregularity and illegality, but a sum of Rs.50,000/- which is provided by the District Forum as mental relief, is a huge amount, because the complainants have been provide the interest in respect of the extra paid amount. Seeing the circumstances of the case, as per our opinion, it will be appropriate to provide a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental relief.
Therefore, the appeal no. FA/19/171 filed by the complainants is dismissed and the appeal no. FA/19/179 filed by the opposite party is accepted. The sub-clause (1) and (2 ) of the paragraph 14 of the order of the District Forum is kept as it is and sub-clause (3) is amended and ordered that the opposite party will pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants towards the mental relief despite of Rs.50,000/- and will pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the cost of litigation to the complainants”.
The petitioner has impugned this order and prayed that the order of the State Commission be set aside as it did not consider the facts on the grounds that the impugned did not examine his grounds of appeal against the order of the District Forum impugned by him. It is contended that the said order is against the facts and that the report of the architect was biased and erroneous without assessing the actual loss.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the facts on record, which have been dealt with by the State Commission at some length in it order dated 21.06.2019, it is apparent that the petitioner has urged the same facts and arguments that it had raised before the lower fora. It has essentially relied upon the same facts and arguments which have been considered by the District Forum and the State Commission while arriving at their findings.
This Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its own conclusion on facts especially when the findings on the facts of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the foras 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 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and 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 Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, has held as under:
“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.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors – (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 and held as under:
“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 T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs and Ors vs N Madhava Rao and Ors, dated 05.04.2019 has again 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.”
It is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in the appeal. Concurrent findings of facts of these two foras are based on evidences 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.
It is a settled proposition of law that where two interpretation of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction. It is apparent that foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. These orders are based on evidence on record. The petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse. I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.