1. This Revision Petition No.167 of 2018 challenges the order of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘State Commission’) dated 18.07.2016. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 446 of 2012 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Arrah (‘District Forum’) dated 05.07.2012 wherein the District Forum directed OPs to receive Rs.98,482/- from the Respondent/ Complaint and execute the lease deed. 2. As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 75 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA/1044/2018, the delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the complainant was allotted a house by the Board on 12.11.1983 for a tentative price of Rs.39,500/- after depositing Rs. 5,850/- as earnest money an Agreement was executed on 23.07.1986 requiring her to pay equal instalments of Rs.408/- per month. The agreement also stated that, if there was an enhancement due to Land Acquisition or Development, the final cost would be recalculated, and the allottee shall pay the additional amount. She paid regular instalments until March 1989, then stopped. After a lapse of 10 years, in March 1999, she deposited Rs. 36,312/-. The Board calculated the final cost of the house, including interest, to be Rs. 1,04,228/- and informed the complainant vide letter dated 12.07.1999 to deposit by 31.08.1999. By 28.02.2010, the amount due had increased to Rs. 3,46,762/-. Instead of paying the demanded amount, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. 4. The Petitioner Board, in its Reply filed before the District Forum contended that she was allotted flat No. LH-1/44 in Dalpatpur Ara vide respondent Board letter No.2169/Ara dated 12.11.1983. As per Clauses 4 and 5 of the allotment letter, the preliminary amount was to be deposited within the time stipulated. If the allottee did not make the payment in time in compliance with the terms, then the allotment would be cancelled. The complainant did not take interest in getting the agreement executed, resulting in a three-year delay. The agreement with her was eventually entered into on 23.07.1986. As per clause 3A of the agreement, the allottee was required to deposit the entire amount in 120 monthly instalments @ Rs. 408/- per month from 01.09.1986. If the instalment was paid by the 7th of the month, the allottee had to deposit only Rs. 395/- instead of Rs. 408/-. According to clause 4(A) of the agreement, the sale price shown in the agreement was an estimated one based on the prevailing rate. The Board would finalize the final amount based on construction costs, development work, and any extra amount awarded by the court. The allottee could not object to the increase in the final amount. The complainant deposited only 30 instalments in time, and the balance were not deposited for 10 years thereafter. On 31.3.1999, she deposited Rs. 36,312/- with the respondent Board. The total sum paid by her was Rs. 56,447.50, leaving a due of Rs. 1,84,666/- as on 30.11.1988. As per calculation sheet No. 5313 dated 15.07.1999 of the Revenue Officers, she was directed to deposit Rs. 1,04,228/- by 31.08.1999. According to clause 25 of the agreement, any dispute was to be decided by an arbitrator after contacting the Managing Director. The complainant could not file the case before the Forum without taking this step. The Board argued that the issue did not fall within the definition of deficiency in service, making the complaint not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court of Patna determined in CWJC No. 941/92 that the respondent Board did not charge interest to earn a profit but to fulfil financial obligations. The Board contended that the matter of pricing was not a consumer dispute. 5. The District Forum, vide order dated 05.07.2012 partly allowed the complaint with the following directions: “ ORDER Hence it is ordered that since the complaint of the complainant is partially maintainable hence this case is partially allowed and the respondent board is directed that within 30 days from the date of payment of Rs 98482.00 by the complainant with the respondent Board, the respondent Board shall be execute the lease deed of the allotted flat in favour of the complainant otherwise the complainant shall be at liberty that as per the provisions of the law she may deposit the said amount by way demand draft in favour of the respondent before this Forum and to get the lease deed from the Forum (on behalf of the respondent) for which the entire liability and responsibility shall be of the respondent Board. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case both the parties shall bear their respective expenses. In this manner the suit is disposed of.” (Extracted from translated copy) 6. On Appeal, the learned State Commission, vide the order dated 18.07.2016 affirmed the District Forum order dated 05.07.2012 with reasons as below: “6. Having considered the submission of the appellant- Board and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum as also the order of the Hon'ble National Commission, it appears that the District Forum has considered and has examined all its possible details as to what amounts were paid by the complainant and what amount remained to be paid by the complainant. There is no evidence on record what development work had been carried out and which of the basic amenities were provided to the allottee by the Board for justification of enhancement of the cost of the flat/house. The District Forum has examined in detail the amount of monthly instalments paid by the allotee form September 1986 to August 1996. The appellant Board demanded Rs.l,04,228/- till 31-08-1999 and Rs.3,46,762/- till 28-02-2010. The appellant- Board has accepted in its Counter affidavit filed before the District Forum that the appellant-Board has not done any developmental works and has not provided any basic amenities after delivery of possession of the house to the complainant. Though, calculation chart of the demanded amount of Rs.3,46,762/- was produced before the District Forum but there was no justification for enhancement of the cost which comes to Rs.3,46,762/- till 28-02-2010. It is also not ascertained whether this amount has been fixed and approved by the pricing Committee of the Board or not. It appears that the Board do not want to settle this matter which is under dispute since 2002 when the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum has examined the matter in detail as per the direction of the Hon'ble National Commission and has passed the impugned order. We do not find any illegality or error in the District Forum order and there is no reason to take a different view in this matter. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.” 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Board reiterated the grounds taken in the Revision Petition and Reply filed before the District Forum. She averred that the Petitioner is a statutory body and runs under the principle of ‘no profit not loss’ with no funds of its own. She contended that what the State Commission failed to take into consideration is that the price escalation was as per the contractual terms and therefore, the Respondent had no locus to dispute the escalated price. She further contended that in terms of clause 25 of the Agreement executed between the parties which provided that in case of any dispute in between the Parties, the same shall be referred for arbitration to the Managing Director of the Petitioner whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties. She further contended that the Board maintained that the final cost was calculated according to the terms of the agreement, considering enhancements due to Land Acquisition and development costs. She further submitted that the Fora below have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by the law. She sought to allow the present Revision Petition and set aside the orders of both the Fora below. 8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant reiterated the averments made in the Complaint before the District Forum. He has argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the Fora below and sought dismissal of the Revision Petition. 9. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the both the learned fora, and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties. 10. This is second round of litigation before this Commission. Against the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the District Forum, Arrah, in Complaint Case No. 227 of 2002, the Board filed appeal before the State Commission. Vide order dated 27.10.2009 in Appeal No. 613 of 2003, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Board preferred Revision against the State Commission order dated 17.01.2011 in Revision Petition No. 1522 of 2010. This Commission remanded the case to the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 05.07.2012 partly allowed the Complaint, against which the Appeal was preferred by the Board and the State Commission dismissed the Appeal No.446/2012. Hence, this Revision Petition. 11. The learned the State Commission passed a detailed and well- reasoned order based on evidence on record and the arguments advanced before it and determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. There are no new grounds that have been brought out by the Petitioner so as to warrant any interference with the concurrent findings in the case. 12. It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the learned State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. In this regard, I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. 13. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:- “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. .....” 14. Similarly, 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. 15. Based on the discussion above, the learned District Forum and State Commission have passed a detailed and well-reasoned orders based on evidence and law. There are no new grounds that have been brought out by the Petitioner so as to warrant any interference with the concurrent findings in the case. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. |
