Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisional jurisdiction of National Consumer Commission – Ambit and scope – Consumer complaint against bank by a customer (appellant) alleging blunder in credit of cheque amount – The amount was credited to account of second respondent, another customer with a similar name who was having account in the same bank branch – Complaint allowed by Consumer Forum – Order partly upheld by State Consumer Commission – Revision application filed by respondent-bank against order of State Consumer Commission allowed by National Consumer Commission – Propriety – Held: On facts, not proper – Revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer Commission u/s.21(b) 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, came to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required – Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as contemplated in order-41, R.27, CPC – Apart from the fact that there is a vast difference between exercise of appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction, no such application was filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission –Under the circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission on its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted – Impugned order of National Commission accordingly set aside. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complaint before forum under the Act – Entertainability – Held: The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry – Requirement of leading detailed evidence cannot be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Consumer Protection Act.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, r.27 – Evidence – Production of additional evidence – Requirements for – Held: Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as contemplated in Order XLI, r.27 – The party has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Inapplicability – When – On facts, held: The National Consumer Commission grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement of Counsel for the respondent-bank that it will not press the issue of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court – Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission is in utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in as much as s.5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Pending the revision application filed by respondent-SBI, the National Commission had called for a report on the whole matter from the SBI. Accordingly, a report dated 19th March, 2019 was filed by the Regional Manager of the SBI. Relying upon the said report, the National Commission allowed the revision application filed by the bank, by observing inter-alia that though revisional jurisdiction of the Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a defined purview and ambit, it does allow interference if grave misappreciation of evidence or superficial appraisal of a case is discernible on the part of the two fora below. This court is at a loss to understand as to how the National Commission could have sought for a report at the revisional stage, that too from an officer of the party which already had an opportunity to submit all the documents necessary for the purpose of defending itself before the Consumer Forum, and as to how such a report in the form of an additional evidence produced at the revisional stage could be relied upon, in respect of which the two fora below had no opportunity to deal with. [Para 8][266-C-F]
2. The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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. In the opinion of the Court, both the State Commission as well as the Consumer Forum had elaborately appreciated the documents on record and passed the reasoned orders. The report that tries to absolve the respondent-bank of its liability is based on surmises and conjectures as it abstrusely and without evidence holds that the bank has every reason to believe that wrong account number was intentionally inserted by the appellant himself for reasons best known to the appellant or on account of negligence by the appellant by not keeping the passbook in his safe and proper custody. The suppositions are contradictory as well as incredulous and fanciful. The appellant did not know the second respondent and would not have known his account number unless given to him by a bank officer. There was no way that the appellant would have known that the second respondent, had an account in the same branch. No sane person would deposit cash or cheque meant to be deposited in his account in an account number belonging to another person with similar name. On the other hand, the bank should have been extra cautious given the fact that accounts of the appellant, and the second respondent, were with the same bank branch. What is rather surprising is that the National Commission for setting aside the findings and conclusion recorded by the District and State Forum, simply reproduced the report by one of the officers of the party in litigation with the appellant. The National Commission has not adverted and delved into the sound reasoning given by the State Commission. [Para 9][266-F-H; 267-A-E]
3. Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as contemplated in order-41, R.27. The party has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Apart from the fact that there is a vast difference between the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and the revisional jurisdiction, no such application was filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission. Under the circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission on its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted. [Para 10][267-E-G]
4. Further, requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry. [Para 11][267-G-H; 268-A-B]
CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 139 – relied on.
5. The National Commission grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement of Counsel for the SBI that it will not press the issue of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court. Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission is in utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in as much as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court. Be that as it may, the impugned order passed by the National Commission solely relying upon the suo-moto report called for from the respondent-bank during the pendency of the revision application, being highly erroneous, is set aside. [Para 12][268-B-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.