1. This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 30.01.2015 in First Appeal No. FA/671/2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal and upholding order dated 31.08.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, Kolkata (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Case no. 166 of 2010. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, as stated by the petitioner, are that the respondent has claimed possession of a flat which was constructed by the unregistered partnership firm of her late husband and the husband of the respondent. The petitioner contends that the flat in question was not offered for sale and no agreement for sale was executed. The respondent is alleged to have relied on fabricated documents and has trespassed into the flat for which an FIR has been lodged. The orders of the lower fora are stated to be erroneous in having upheld the claims of the respondent based upon fabricated documents. 3. IA No.12113 of 2016 filed by petitioner was allowed as not opposed by learned counsel for respondent on 20.12.2016 and respondent nos.2 and 7 were deleted from the array of parties. Respondent nos.3 to 6 were declared ex parte on 02.03.2016. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the authorised representative on behalf of respondent no. 1 who chose to argue himself as amicus curiae was not present and have carefully considered the material on record. 4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, late Ramesh Singh and the husband of respondent no. 1, Biplab Mukherjee, were partners in M/s A.M. Builders and Associates, 15B, Naskarpara Road, Paschim Putiary, Kolkata-41 who entered into an agreement dated 06.02.1996 to undertake construction of a residential building on 87/12/58/2A, Raja SC Mullick Road, Kolkata 700047 with the owners of the said property. Following the death of Ramesh Singh, his wife Kanchan Singh, became the principal partner in the firm. A dispute arose between her and the respondent with regard to a flat in this building which the respondent claims was purchased by her on 20.10.2000. According to the petitioner, the respondent had fabricated all documents for this flat which had not been advertised for sale. Petitioner contends that the District Forum had erroneously ordered in the respondent’s favour in CC 166 of 2010 and the State Commission had affirmed its order in FA No. 671/2012 on 30.01.2015. The present revision petition has impugned this order on the grounds that she has been defrauded by respondent no. 8, who is a partner of her late husband in their unregistered partnership firm, through fabricated documents in respondent’s name. It is stated that respondent no. 8 had filed a consumer complaint in collusion with his wife (present respondent) before the District Commission stating that there was an agreement dated 20.10.2000 with regard to the flat in respect of which a receipt dated 12.08.1999 was produced. It is stated that the District Forum decided the matter on the basis of xeroxed papers and did not insist on original documents. The petitioner contends that there was no offer of sale of the flat by any publication in any newspaper, pamphlets, brochures, banners, etc., and no booking amount or installments were ever received. No documents were ever executed or signed or thumb impression provided. The consumer complaint was filed after a delay of 10 years without any justification provided for the delay. It is the petitioner’s case that the consumer fora lacked jurisdiction in the matter since there are civil and criminal issues involved as the respondent has trespassed into the flat and an FIR has been lodged. It is therefore prayed that the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission be set aside. 5. The petitioner has also argued, relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawraj & Anr. Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013 and Majji Sannemma @Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi, CA No. 7696 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 that the matter was barred by limitation since the respondent/complainant failed to meet the requirements of section 24A of the Act before the District Forum having failed to show sufficient cause for approaching the Forum after the expiry of 2 years. 6. The respondent’s case is that the residential flat in the North West back portion of the building constructed by M/s A.M. Builders and Associates on the 4th floor was sold through an agreement for sale dated 20.10.2000 and on payment of a sum Rs 6,50,000/- as the entire sale consideration. It is denied that the documents were fabricated or that no sale consideration had been paid. The orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are stated to be valid and justified in view of the facts of the case. 7. The District Forum held that the agreement for sale of the property in question between the late Ramesh Singh and the complainant/respondent was established for which full consideration had been paid, that the fact that the complainant was the wife of OP 8 did not debar her from getting relief and since OP 7 had stepped into the shoes of her deceased husband, she could not raise any dispute about the agreement and that the civil disputes between the parties should not result in the complainant suffering as a consumer. The order of the District Forum reads as under: As the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance has not been done there is deficiency in service specially on the part of OP 7. In view of the above discussions the complainant is entitled to get relief. As a result the case succeeds. Hence, Ordered That the CC no.166 of 2010 be and the same is decreed on contest with cost against OP 7 and without cost against others. All the OPs are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in question described in schedule B to the complainant within one month from this date failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to put the decree into execution in accordance with law. The OP 7 is directed to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date failing which the said amount shall carry an interest@ 10% p.a. from the date of default till realization. Considering the circumstances of the case we do not pass any order of compensation. 8. The State Commission upheld this order on appeal, holding as under: Having heard both sides and on perusal of papers it is evident that the Complainant entered into an agreement for sale with one of the partners of O.P.-developer under certain terms and conditions and paid the entire amount of consideration as per terms of the agreement. Therefore, liability lies on the part of the Appellant-developer to transfer the flat in question in favour of the purchaser. However, the Appellant-O.P. did not dispute the agreement or money receipt before the Ld. District Forum. In view of that, we are of opinion that the Ld. District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. In the result, the appeal fails. Hence, ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement is affirmed. 9. From the record it is manifest that the lower fora have arrived at concurrent findings on facts. This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any error in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Company (2011) 11 SCC 269 dated 18.03.2011 has held that: “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.” 11. Reiterating this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors (2016) 8 SCC 286 dated 02.08.2016 held: “17. 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.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2019 in the case of T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019 held as under: “12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.” 13. The foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before me in this revision petition. It is also seen that the orders of these fora are based on evidence on record. In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail. 14. In view of the foregoing, I find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed. | 
