1.      This Revision Petition No. 2205 of 2019 challenges the impugned order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) dated 04.07.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No.809 of 2017 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-I (‘the District Forum’) dated 08.06.2017.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the complainant was appointed by the Respondents for collection and delivery of letters/parcels. To get the above work done, a Security Deposit Amount of Rs.10,000/- was received from the Complainant through cheque No.030777 dated 12.09.2012 was submitted by the Respondents.  After some time, the Complainant was removed by the Respondents and did not return the deposited amount of Rs.10,000/-.  The Complainant served notice to the Respondent for returning the deposited amount but of no avail.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3.      Despite service of notice on the OPs, they did not appear before the District Forum and also not filed any reply to the complaint.

4.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 08.06.2017, dismissed the complaint as the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ and he does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/ Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 04.07.2019 Dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the District Forum.

6.      In his arguments, the learned Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Complainant is a consumer and she sought the impugned orders of the fora below to be set aside and relied on the following judgments:

(a) Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. V. Greveas Cotton and Company Ltd.,1990 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3;

(b) Cheema Engineering Service v. Rajan Singh(1997)1 SCC 131;

(c) Madan Kumar Singh V. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur, (2009) 9 SCC 79;

(d) Paramount Digital Colour Lab V. Agfa India (P) Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 81;

(e) Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Vs. S Ambika Dvi(2020)13 SCC 130;

(f) Sunil Kohli v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 235;

(g) Rohit Chaudhary V. Vipul Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1131;

(h) Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers, (2020) 2 SCC 265;

(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Harsolia Motors & Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 362;

(j) Shrikant G.Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2022) 5 SCC 42;

(k) Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo, (2011) 8 SCC 539.

7.      None appeared on behalf of Respondents/OPs on 20.01.2022, 19.05.2022, 14.10.2022 and 18.10.2023 despite service, they were placed ex-parte vide order dated 14.12.2023. 

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the Petitioner.

9.      The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. This was primarily because the complainant is not a consumer and he does not fall within the meaning of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This order is now under challenge at the revision stage.

10.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

11.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12.    Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

13.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed.

14.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.