Revisional jurisdiction of NCDRC u/s 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act is extremely limited, says Apex Court

Read Judgment: Sunil Kumar Maity V. State Bank of India & Anr.

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, January 24, 2022: The Supreme Court has opined that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 is extremely limited and should be exercised only if it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela. M Trivedi were therefore surprised by the action of the National Commission in setting aside the findings & conclusion recorded by the District and State Forum, by simply reproducing the report by one of the officers of the party in litigation with the appellant. 

The observation came pursuant to an appeal by Sunil Kumar Maity (Appellant – Complainant) challenging the judgment, whereby the National Commission (NCDRC) allowed the revision petition and dismissed the complaint with a liberty to the complainant to approach a competent civil court as per the law. In the impugned judgment, the NCDRC also stated that if the complainant chooses to bring action in a civil court, he is free to file an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency, the chronological facts and proceedings in the consumer protection forum would be material and relevant towards making such application. 

After considering the submissions, the Apex Court was 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 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.

“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, namely Sunil Maity 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”, added the Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Trivedi referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 233 , wherein it was held that 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, and 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.

The Division Bench therefore allowed the appeal observing that the order passed by the National Commission was 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.