ORDER

PER MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner  - Dharamveer Prasad @ Dharamveer Gupta @ Rohit Kumar Gupta @ Dugloo against  the order dated  14.12.2015 of  the State Commission passed in First Appeal No. 470/2010.

2.      The  brief facts  of  the case are that  one Parasuram Prasad had a Fixed Deposit with the OP-Bank. The account holder died before  the maturity date of the fixed deposit.   The account holder had nominated Dharmvir Prasad  (Nati) aged 14 years.  The Bank did not pay the proceeds to the complainant. Then the petitioner/ complainant, being  the  grand-son  (Pota) of  the deceased filed CC No. 379/2009 before the District Forum and another  complaint  bearing No. CC16/2010 was filed before the District Forum by the grand-son  “Nati”  of  the deceased.  The District Forum vide order dated 16.08.2010  jointly decided these two complaints  and  the  complaint No.16/2010 was allowed and it was ordered  that  the amount of  the  fixed deposit be paid to the complainant in Complaint No.16/2010.  Simultaneously, CC No.379/2009 was dismissed.

3.      Aggrieved  with  the order  dated 16.08.2010 of the District Forum, the complainant filed Appeal No. 470/2010 before the State Commission.  The State Commission  vide  its order dated  14.12.2015 dismissed the said Appeal.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and  perused  the record.  The learned  counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant  in  complaint  No.16/2010  has  taken the  same name  as that of  the  present petitioner.  The nomination clearly says that the grandson is nominated and the petitioner is the grandson of the deceased.  However, the District Forum has committed a mistake by allowing the payment to be made to the complainant in CC 16/2010.  The State Commission also erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum.  It was requested that the orders  of the fora below be set aside and revision petition may be allowed.  

6.      I have given a  thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record.  The District Forum has observed as under :-

“The suit of applicant of case No.379/2009 is not correct, he revealed his alias name as Rohit Kumar @ Dharamveer only for suit and  prepared document different.  Applicant of case No. 379/2009 is “pota” of depositor  whenever  applicant of case No.16/10 is “Nati” of depositor. Therefore, applicant of case No.16/10 Dharamveer Prasad  is liable to receive questioned money on the basis of his nomination as nominee.  It is stated by the applicant in case No. 379/2009 that “Pota” is also called as “Nati”,  generally,  cannot be accepted. Hence case No.379/09 of applicant is wrong”.

7.      It is clear  that  both  the fora below  have given concurrent finding and the claim of the  petitioner  herein  has been dismissed by both the fora.  In matters of concurrent  finding  of  facts, the scope under the revision petition is very limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, as under :

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

8.      Thus,  it  is  clear that this Commission cannot  reassess  the  facts  at the stage of  revision petition because the facts have been examined and extracted  already  by   the  fora  below and both  the fora  below have come to the same finding  that  the complainant’s case  is not substantiated by  the evidence and hence rejected.

9.      From the above, it is clear that both the complainants had the same name,  but on the  basis  of  evidence,  the District Forum has found that the complainant  in  the  present  case  had the other name Rohit Kumar and he was the “Pota” of the deceased, whereas, the nomination is for Dharambir Prasad (Nati).  The District  Forum  has distinguished  between “Pota” and “Nati” and on  the   basis of the evidence, it has been adjudicated by the District Forum  that  complainant in CC No.16/2010 is the “Nati” of the deceased and, therefore, he was entitled to receive the payment.             

10.    I  have  perused  the FD A/c Opening Form which is dated 09.08.1999 wherein under the Column of nomination, the name “Dharamveer Prasad”, aged 14 years  and relationship  has  been shown as “Nati”.  Clearly, the petitioner is ‘not‘ the “Nati” of the deceased. Moreover,  the  nominee  was  of  14 years’ of age  in the year 1999  when the FD A/c was opened.  It means  that  nominee  should  be  of  at  least 31 years’ of age, in the year 2017.  However,  the  complainant/petitioner  in his affidavit dated 08.05.2017 filed along with the revision petition, has stated his age as  of  about 27 years, therefore,  this discrepancy also  goes  to  prove the point  that   the  complainant/petitioner  is not the original nominee. 

11.    Based on the above considerations, I do not find any illegality,  material irregularity  or  jurisdictional error  in the impugned order passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No. 1298 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.