Varahagiri Jagannadha Swamy vs Padmapriya & Priya Theatres & Ors

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

This Revision Petition has been filed by Complainant Varahagiri Jagannadha Swamy under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh in F.A.  No. 523 of 2016, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order of the Ld. District Forum dismissing the Complaint was affirmed.

The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant and his wife visited Sri Padmapriya Theatre on 24.03.2012; Anand Theatre on 03.11.2012; revisited Anand Theatre on 28.04.2013, and also attended a movie at Sangeet Theatre on the same date. Throughout these visits, food items like cold drinks, chips, and biscuits were sold at prices exceeding the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) by 15% to 20%. When the Complainant questioned these inflated prices, he was met with adamant responses from the sellers. On 05.11.2012, a Complaint was lodged with the Respondent No. 6. On 10.12.2012, an RTI Application was submitted to D.R.O-cum-P.I.O. However, no response was received from the Respondent No. 6. Consequently, an appeal was made to the District Collector. The core grievance raised by the Complainant pertains to the prohibition on theatre audiences from purchasing items at MRP rates from outside the theatre during the show or intermission, thereby restricting their freedom of choice. Moreover, theatre proprietors are collecting parking charges from visitors without lawful authority. Feeling aggrieved by the unfair trade practices of escalated food prices within the theatres, limitations on movement, and unjustifiable parking fees, he filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Kakinada.

The District Forum vide its Order dated 01.08.2016 dismissed the Complaint. The Petitioner filed his Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide the impugned Order dated 06.11.2019 affirmed the Order of the Ld. District Forum.

Both the Ld. Fora below had come to concurrent decisions that the complaint filed by the Petitioner could not succeed as he had failed to substantiate his contentions and allegations on the basis of any convincing evidence.  It is well settled that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Commission cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence in a case of concurrent findings, and the scope available to this Forum in its revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on September 8, 2022”; in this regard has observed inter alia –

“7.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car.  Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.  It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  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.  Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

Again in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011, decided on 18.3.2011, the Apex Court had set aside the decision of this Commission by virtue of which the concurrent decisions of the Ld. District Forum and the State Commission, which had gone in favour of the Complainant, were set aside with the following observations –

“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.”

In this Revision Petition, the Petitioner/Complainant, who happens to be an Advocate himself, has not even filed the oral and documentary evidence led from his side before the Ld. Fora below.   Not that there was much scope for this Commission to re-appreciate the same after the decisions against the Petitioner had been concurrently passed by both the Ld. Fora below.  But, non-filing of such evidence cannot give rise to even any supposition that there might have been gross perversity of any kind in considering the same by both the Ld. Fora below.

Consequently, this Commission finds no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below.  The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.