Complainant Dr. Devi Dayal Gupta had filed his complaint against B.R.S. Institute of Medical Science, Dental College & Hospital /OP-1 and Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Haryana. District Forum, Punchkula allowed the complaint and exempted OP-2 from any liability. OP-1 was ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.24850/- with 6 percent interest with effect from the date of deposit till realization. The prayer of the Complainant was thus partly allowed. The District Forum however, did not make any order for payment of compensation and litigation charges sought by the Complainant.
2. The Complainant having won the case on merit, filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. OP-1 (the B.R.S. Institute of Medical Science), who had been ex-parte before the District Forum, was represented by Mrs. Supriya Singh, Advocate before the State Commission. OP-2, the Provident Fund Commissioner was represented by Mrs. Nitu Prashar Advocate. The State Commission, after hearing both sides, passed the following orders:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file and documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if appellant-complainant is awarded an interest on the balance deposited amount of Rs.24850/- which was prevent at the relevant time w.e.f. the date of deposit till realization. We order accordingly.”
3. Having won the case on merits both in District Forum and State Commission, Complainant Dr. Devi Dayal Gupta has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission. As the first appeal in the matter has already been considered by the State Commission, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 17(a)(ii), no appeal would lie to this Commission under Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the present petition, though styled as an appeal by the petitioner, has been considered as a revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. From a comparison of the prayer made in the petition to the National Commission, with the prayer in the complaint petition before the District Forum, we find that the relief sought now goes well beyond the original pleadings of the Complainant. The prayer in the complaint before the District Forum was—
“It is therefore prayed that the following directions to be issued to the Opposite parties.
i) To make the payment of Rs.24,850/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum till date.
ii) To award Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for mental and physical harassment.
iii) To award Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.”
5. The District Forum and the State Commission have both ordered refund of Rs 24850 with interest. But, in the revision petition before this Commission, the quantum of refund sought has increased from Rs.24850/-to Rs.83664/- and the litigation charge has increased from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-. This is an attempt to abuse the process of law and waste the time of this Commission in frivolous litigation. Therefore, the petition before us, become liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. The scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission in exercise of power under Section 21 (b) is extremely limited one. Under this provision, this Commission can intervene only in cases where it is found that the State Commission has exercised a 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. In this behalf, Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 11 SCC 269:
“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.”
7. We have perused the records and heard the petitioner Dr. Devi Dayal Gupta, in person. He did not make any attempt to explain how the relief sought in the present petition has become larger than the prayer in the original complaint. The only answer he could tender was that his prayer for costs of litigation had not been considered by the fora below. There is nothing in the revision petition or in the personal argument of the petitioner, which points to any jurisdictional error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, which could justify invocation of the revisionl jurisdiction of this Commission. The revision petition is consequently dismissed for want of merit. Further, considering the background of the case and professional background of the petitioner, we refrain from imposing any punitive cost on him. | 
