PER MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

Heard petitioner who is present in person.

2.      It is the case of the petitioner that in the recurring deposit of petitioner, bank has given less amount and the bank has stated that four installments were submitted with delay.  However, petitioner stated that they were not delayed.  It is seen that both the Fora below have given concurrent findings, therefore, facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission at the stage of the revision petition as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“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 that 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 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 finding of two fora.”

3.      No legal question is involved in the present revision petition.  The petition of the petitioner has been filed on the grounds of facts which cannot be reassessed by this Commission after the concurrent finding given on facts by the Fora below.  Therefore, relying upon the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, R.P. No.2120 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.