MA/117/2020 (FOR RESTORATION) Arguments heard. In the interest of justice the order of dismissal in default dated 18.11.2019 is hereby recalled. RP/1974/2012 Arguments on the Revision Petition have been heard. The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 09.03.2012 in Appeal No. 33 of 2011 of the Petitioner challenging the order of the District Forum dated 14.09.2010 in Complaint No. 366 of 2002. 2. Learned Counsel has argued that the findings of the Fora below are perverse since not based on the evidences and the Fora below have not taken into consideration the fact that the entire money payable under the units were duly paid by the Petitioners to Complainant/Respondents and nothing was due on the date when Complaint was filed. Learned Counsel admits, on being asked whether this contention had been raised by the Petitioners in their Written Version, agrees that no such contention had been raised by the Petitioners in their Written Statement. Since this fact that the Petitioners had duly paid the entire payable money to the Respondents has never been contended there was no occasion for the Fora below to give any finding as there was no such issue before the Fora below. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) is limited as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “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”. 3. Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under: “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.” 3. It is, therefore, clear that this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has only limited jurisdiction. Where there are concurrent findings, this Commission cannot intervene on the findings of fact and substitute its opinion. The only ground this Commission can intervene is whether there is a jurisdictional error and whether the findings are perverse. In the present case none of those conditions exists. The present revision has no merits and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. | 
