PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 04.04.2019 of the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 469 of 2017 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 720 of 2014 dated 18.01.2017. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the revision petitioner are that he had purchased a used Toyota car bearing registration number TN 37 AV 4500 from Anaamalais Toyota, Coimbatore for which he obtained a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondent. He had filed Consumer Complaint No. 90 of 2012 before the District Forum, Coimbatore alleging excessive amount claimed/recovered by the respondents which came to be allowed. He thereafter filed another consumer complaint before the District Forum, Bangalore (No. 720/2017) on the ground that the cause of action was a letter issued by the Bangalore branch office of respondent no.1. This complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs 5,000/- on the ground that the cause of action was established at Coimbatore and relief had been sought regarding the EMIs to be paid on the loan taken for the purchase of the Toyota car from Anaamalais Toyota, Coimbatore from respondent no.1. The cause of action was not considered as it was a letter issued at the request of the applicant and was not a demand letter. 3. The State Commission’s order is based on the exhibits produced before it and the references to them in the District Forum’s order. The order reads: “10. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the appellant has filed CC no.90 of 2012 and got the order on 11.04.2013 against the opposite party no.2 as per Ex. A8 (Copy of the judgments on former case – CC/90/2012). The District Forum has also referred to the complaint filed by the appellant at Ex B 8 (Complaint copy of CC no .90 of 2012) and version of opposite party at Ex P (B) 7 (Copy of written version filed by opposite party no.2 in CC no.90 of 2012) and other records. Ex A 9 (copy of the e mail communication of demand letter of Kotak for loan foreclosure dated 05.05.2014) is an e mail message dated 05.05.2014. The District Forum has observed that Ex A 9 shows that the Coimbatore Branch of opposite party no.1 at the request of complainant informed about per day interest and the changing of amount of daily basis so as to accommodate the complainant to make payment at their Bangalore Branch. Ex A9 was issued in case of foreclosure only. Therefore, the observation of the District Forum that the complainant does not get any right on the basis of Ex A 9 and there is no question of any new cause of action. It appears that the complainant had written a letter to the opposite parties after disposal of the Coimbatore case intimating his desire to foreclose the amount and then only this Ex A 9 message was sent to him. Under these circumstances, the observation of the District Forum that the present complaint is also barred by law of limitation has to be accepted. Therefore, the filing of present complaint is nothing but multiplicity of the proceedings. The District Forum in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment has also observed that the approach of the complainant is nothing but misuse of process of court. In the circumstances, the reasons assigned by the District Forum are just and proper and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, the following: The appeal is dismissed. No costs. The order passed by the 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore dated 18.01.2017 in CC no. 720 of 2014 is hereby confirmed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Forum for disbursement of the same to the opposite party no.1. The return the LCR to the District Forum forthwith.’’ 4. The District Forum also dismissed the appeal on the same grounds and findings. 5. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records carefully. The petitioner has argued that his cause of action is the letter from respondent no.1 relating to his loan and that in view of the same his complaint before the District Forum was wrongly disallowed and his appeal erroneously dismissed by the State Commission. He has urged the same facts and arguments that he presented before the lower fora and sought that the petition be allowed. The respondents have argued that the petition is without basis in view of the concurrent findings of the lower fora. The letter cited by the petitioner to show cause of action is issued at the petitioner’s request and therefore cannot be treated as such. It is also contended that the petitioner’s case is based upon a calculation of EMI by the calculator tool on the website of respondent no. 1 which has a disclaimer as to the exact calculations. 6. There is no issue on facts or evidence that the petitioner has been able to highlight that has not been considered by the District Forum or the State Commission. The arguments of the petitioner have been considered by both the fora and reasoned findings arrived at. It is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in the appeal. Findings of facts of the District Forum are based on evidences and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. As there is no factual error or perversity in the order of the State Commission that has been pointed out, the revision petition is liable to be rejected. 7. This Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its own conclusion on facts. It can interfere with the findings of the foras 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 26 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, has held as under: “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.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors – (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 and 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.” 10. It is apparent that foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. These orders are based on evidence on record. The petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse. I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed. | 
