PER MR. ROHIT KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER

1.       The present Revision Petition No. 576/2019 has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the impugned order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu in First Appeal No. 613/2012 whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore in CC No. 250/2010.

2.       There was a delay of 13 days in filing the present Revision Petition. In the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner are that the Respondent/Complainant purchased a policy no. 762657568 for a sum assured of Rs. 5,00,000 from LIC branch office, Sulur for a period of 10 years commencing from 24.03.2001. From 2004 to 2006 the complainant availed 3 loans under the policy. The complainant requested the transfer of policy to Mettupalayam branch and the outstanding loan on the date of transfer was Rs. 2,01,500. On 03.02.2007 the Complainant went to make payment of Rs. 2,00,000 towards outstanding loan and interest. The Complainant could not submit his PAN card details and hence the cashier returned the cash and cancelled the receipts. Due to some technical problem, the payment was not reversed in the backend in the computer system and it wrongly reflected a balance of Rs. 9,500 as due. LIC wrongly sent an intimation letter reflecting the balance payable to be Rs. 9,897, which was paid by the Complainant. The said amount was refunded to the Complainant after the rectification in the backend on 11.09.2007. The Complainant sent a letter to LIC requesting to return the policy which was pledged with it in lieu of loan on 05.10.2007. LIC replied on 09.10.2007 stating that the outstanding loan is Rs. 2,01,500 and interest due is         Rs. 10,780. The Complainant sent a legal notice to the Petitioner and the Petitioner restated that the policy document could not be returned till the balance loan amount was cleared.

4.       The Respondent/Complainant approached the District Consumer Forum, Coimbatore (CC No. 250/2010). The District Forum, vide its order dated 17.07.2012 held that on the basis of the evidence on record the Corporation’s explanation that the receipts of payment made by the Complainant were cancelled and the amounts were returned to him is not established. The District Forum directed the LIC to deliver the insurance policy to the Complainant and payment of Rs. 25,000 for compensation towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000 towards cost.

5.       The Petitioner Corporation then filed its appeal (FA No. 613/2012) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum on 05.09.2018.

6.       The Petitioner challenged the impugned order mainly on the following grounds:

i) Because the State Commission failed to consider the conduct of the complainant that belies the case set up subsequently that he had repaid the loan on 03.02.2007 itself, the Complainant continued to service the loan and paid a sum of Rs. 6,247 towards loan interest on 13.04.2007, and also paid the regular premium.

ii) Because the State Commission failed to appreciate that the complainant failed to furnish any documentary evidence of having discharged the entire loan liability.

iii) Because the Complainant submitted a request for return of the policy after 7 months of allegedly making the payment without any cogent explanation.

7.       The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submitted/argued that the PAN card details were sought from the Complainant as a prerequisite of accepting the cash deposit, and the receipts generated were cancelled then and there because the Complainant failed to furnish his PAN details. It was submitted that the Complainant requested for the return of the policy after 7 months of allegedly making the payment. It was further submitted that the accounts of the Corporation are subject to external audits and if there was a receipt of excess amounts the same would have been flagged. It was also submitted that the Complainant ought to have accounted for the payment in his income tax returns but the said returns were not produced by him. The Petitioner submitted that in the case of “Sheela R. Ohri Prop. of Emarsso International v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.” decided by this Commission, it was held that “No doubt, the degree of proof in a consumer complaint may not be very high but, at least there should be some proof to infer genuineness of the documents and the contents thereof.”

8.       The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted/argued that he was not given acknowledgement receipt of payment of Rs. 2,00,000 made by him since the printer was under repair. It was submitted that if there was a problem in generating the challan for want of PAN details, the cashier would not have generated four receipts and that there is no reasoning as to why four receipts were generated and then cancelled. It was therefore contended that the Revision Petition should be dismissed with costs.

9.       The issue for consideration is whether on 03.02.2007 the Complainant had paid Rs. 2,00,000 in cash to the cashier of the Petitioner or not. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Parties.

10.       When the complainant went to repay the loan, the cashier prepared 4 receipts of Rs. 50,000 each but did not ask for the Complainant's PAN card details until that point of time, which is not in accordance with the standard operating procedure followed. As per the Anti Money Laundering Programme guidelines, cash payment of more than Rs. 50,000 should not have been accepted by the cashier but instead he made 4 receipts of Rs. 50,000 each which defeated the purpose behind these guidelines. As per the written submissions of the Opposite party/Petitioners, “the cancelled original receipts along with the counterfoils were retained by the opposite party.” Thus, the complainant cannot be expected to produce the evidence for the deposit of the said amount.

11.     ​​It is a well settled position in law that revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which are pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings on the facts and issues, and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We rely 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 in which it was held inter alia that when both the lower fora have given concurrent findings of fact, the scope of this Commission in the revisional jurisdiction is limited. It was also held in this case that in exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

12.     It has also been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  “Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31” as under:

“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.     For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

14.     Parties to bear their own costs.

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