1.      This Revision Petition No. 3918 of 2017 challenges the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘State Commission’) dated 06.07.2022 dismissing FA No.169 of 2021 and upholding the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (‘District Commission’) dated 26.02.2021 which, allowed the Complaint of the Petitioner/Complainant and directed the OPs to refund Rs.300/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that he deposited a cheque of ₹648/- on 13.08.2018 towards monthly bill due on 14.08.2018 but received messages of non-payment starting from 16.08.2018. Despite clarification emails and letters, he continued to receive reminders and threats of disconnection. To avoid disconnection, the complainant paid a sum of ₹766/- (including late fees) on 31.08.2018, ₹772/- on 09.10.2018, and ₹1,424/- on 12.10.2018, which included unjustified penalties. The complainant sent multiple registered letters but received no resolution. The OPs failed to return the cheque or provide an assurance of non-presentation, leading to financial and emotional distress. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking claims compensation of ₹4,00,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- towards incidental cost, and Rs.50,000/- as legal proceedings costs.

3.      The OPs did not appear despite service of notice, and the matter proceeded ex parte.

4.      The District Forum, vide Order dated 26.02.2021, allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

“As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed ex-parte with an order that OPs shall refund the sum of Rs.300/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment.  The OPs are further held liable to pay composite costs of Rs.5000 on account of compensation and litigation expenses. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.”

5.      Being dissatisfied with the Order dated 26.02.2021, the Petitioner/ Complainant filed First Appeal being No.169 of 2021 and the State Commission vide order dated 06.07.2022 dismissed the said First Appeal with the following order:

“13. Taking into consideration the contentions of the complainant the District Commission decided the complaint of the complainant ex-parte and allowed him to refund Rs.300/- and Rs.5000/- as costs.  We are of the view that these findings of the District Commission are quite tenable and does not require any interference in the appeal because the grievances of the complainant are well addressed by the District Commission and no interference is required. As such, this appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.”

6.      Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed the present Revision Petition against the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the State Commission seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded to him.

7.      The Petitioner, who appeared in person, reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and asserted that the amount granted as compensation by the District Forum was too less and further the same was further upheld, which is unjust. He, therefore, sought to set aside the order of the Fora below and prayed for enhancement of compensation of Rs.4 Lakh along with Rs.1.5 Lakh as incidental cost as well as cost of legal proceedings amounting to Rs.50,000/-.

8.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner herein sought re-assessment and reappreciation of the evidenced which is beyond the scope of revisional proceedings. He further argued that Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act is not intended to supersede the powers vested in other statutory authorities. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition being without merit.

9.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders passed by the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

10.    The learned District Forum rendered a detailed and well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. Also, there are no significant grounds are reasons are advanced by the Petitioner which entails interference with such detailed and well reasoned orders.

11.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. The petitioner failed to reveal anything substantial to warrant interference into the orders passed by the Fora below. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

12.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say that the 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. 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. .....”

13.    Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

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.

14.  In view of the aforesaid deliberations, the detailed and well reasoned order of the learned State Commission dated 06.07.2022 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Thus, no intervention is warranted. The Revision Petition No. 1143 of 2022 is, therefore, dismissed.

15.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.