NCDRC had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction – Apex Court
D.D: – 21 january,2022
Apex Court held in his latest judgement that 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.
Facts – Appellant Sunil Kr. Maity had saving account number 01190010167 with the respondent-bank – account number was changed to number 10140478732. On 15.09.2012, the appellant went to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- in the said account – respondent-bank informed him account number again changed to 32432609504 on his passbook – on 16.01.2013, appellant deposited a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- the appellant went to update his passbook on 11.12.2013 – noticed his passbook balance Rs. 59/- only – on the enquiry – respondent-bank informed – there was another customer by the name Sunil Maity respondent no. 2 whose account number wrongly given -respondent no. 2 on 25.01.2013 and 28.01.2013 had withdrawn the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively – appellant-complainant wrote letters to the respondent-bank but in vain – filed the complaint before the Consumer Forum against the respondent no.1 and 2 – Consumer Forum allowed the complaint – respondent-bank preferred the First Appeal – partly allowed the appeal – confirming the rest of the order passed by the Consumer Forum, modified to the extent that the order for fine @ Rs.100/- per diem struck off – aggrieved bank preferred Revision Petition before the National Commission – called for a report on the whole matter from the SBI – relying on report – revision petition allowed – complaint is dismissed, with liberty to the to approach a competent civil court as per the law – aggrieved appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court further observed that although additional evidence may be presented at the appellate stage, it must be within the parameters of the law, as outlined in order-41, R.27 of the appellate process. The party making the appeal must show that, despite its best efforts, it was unaware of or unable to produce the evidence in question at the time the decree was issued, even after exercising due diligence. In addition to the fact that appellate and revisional jurisdictions are vastly different, no such application was made by the respondent-bank before the National Commission. The National Commission’s request for a report from the bank’s officer on its own was completely unnecessary in light of the circumstances……. 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.
Apex court held that National Commission relied solely on the suo-moto report requested from respondent-bank during the revision application, which is highly erroneous and should be set aside.
SUNIL KUMAR MAITY
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
