1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 24.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1369 of 2016 in which order dated 06.10.2016 of (Third) Jaipur City, Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.847 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 24.11.2016 and 06.10.2016 of the State Commission and District Forum respectively. 2. The Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Bank were Appellant before the State Commission and OP No.1 and 2 before District Forum, Respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent No.1 before State Commission and Complainant before District Forum and Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as OP No.3) was Respondent No.2 before the State Commission and OP No.3 before District Forum. 3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 17.02.2017. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 28.12.2022 ( Petitioner), 11.07.2017 (respondent No.1). 4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant is holder of credit card No. 2088947, through which Bank (ICICI Bank) provides facilities like payment of different types of bills, travelling facilities, medical services etc. The Bank in exchange of services being provided through credit card gets some service charges and does issue statement wherein mention of the transaction done by the customer as also other facts are narrated. There is also mention of attractive offers being provided by the Bank. According to the Complainant, proposal of Gift 360 Kaviraj Warehouse (OP No.3) was also received by her alongwith statement of January 2008 which was specifically for credit card customers wherein the payment for different kind of purchases being effected through the offer of Gift 360 (OPNo.3) was to be paid in 6 EMIs which was totally free of interest. Being impressed with the Gift 360, complainant purchased a jewellery set, the cost of which was Rs.1790/-. The payment of said jewellery set was to be effected @ Rs.298.35 each in 6 EMIs. As per the 360 Offer, a jewellery set was to be consigned to the complainant within 30 days but complainant did not receive the said set till March 2008,while the complainant had already made 3 EMIs to Kaviraj Ware House through Bank. The complainant contacted Gift 360 (OP No.3) on phone who assured that jewellery set will be consigned within a week. However, the set was not sent by Gift 360 and complainant stopped the payment of the remaining three EMIs. The complainant sent intimation to the nodal officer of the Bank at Hyderabad about the non delivery of the set . Inspite of that, no jewellery set was received by the complainant. Complainant, thereafter, sent notice to Jaipur Branch of the Bank and requested that the amount which was paid as EMIs be refunded to her and no late fee payment, interest and services tax be imposed. According to the complainant, the Bank compelled the complainant to make the payment of the late payment fees, interest and services tax. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 06.10.2016 allowed the Complaint against OP No.1 and 2 severally and jointly. Being aggrieved, the Bank preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 24.11.2016 dismissed the Appeal of the Bank. Therefore, the Petitioner is before the Commission now in the present RP. 5. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 24.11.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds: (i) District Forum has erred in saying that offer was made by the Petitioner and thus petitioner Bank is responsible for delivery of the article purchased by the complainant. The District Forum has drawn an adverse inference in absence of any contract between the Petitioner and Gift 360. (ii) No evidence has been placed on record which shows that Petitioner Bank was necessary party to the transaction directly. (iii) The Advertisement relied upon by the Complainant specifically mentioned the exclusion clause of the bank for any delay and delivery/non-delivery/quality of product. Therefore, it cannot be taken as note of contract or offer by the Petitioner. (iv) The Fora below failed to make a proper and necessary party to the complaint against whom the complaint would have been filed by the complainant which was later on allowed to the complainant to make Gift 360 ( Kaviraj) a necessary party. (v) The Fora below failed to appreciate that as a sincere service gesture by the Petitioner, the Bank had reverted the EMI amount alongwith late fee charge, interest and service taxes. (vi) The Fora below exceeded its jurisdiction by suggesting the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings against the Bank. (vii) The Petitioner Bank was neither offeror nor a guarantor and the document Ex.1 relied upon by the complainant clearly exclude the role of the Petitioner Bank in any manner relating to the delivery of goods, the role of the Petitioner was only of Collector which had facilitated the complainant to pay the price of the product in instalments. (viii) The Fora below failed to appreciate that the product was worth Rs.1790/- and the damage which has been sought by the complainant was Rs.1.00 lakh which was disproportionate to the price of the product and also the complainant failed to prove that he suffered with damage to the extent claim as the complaint filed by the complainant was totally silent with regard to the quantum of damage. (ix) It has been clearly mentioned in the pamphlet that Petitioner Bank would not be responsible for the delivery / non delivery / quality of the product as mentioned in condition no.5 of the offer. 6. Since respondent was proceeded ex parte, the case is being decided on merits on the basis of the revision petition, written submissions filed by the petitioner, respondent no.1 and other case records. 6.1. Counsel for the Petitioner argued that State Commission ignored the fact that District Forum’s decision was ill-founded and bad in law as the product and offer were not in anyway endorsed by the Bank. Further, the same was disclosed within the advertisement by virtue of condition no. 5 and 15 as well as disclaimer on the bottom left of the advertisement. It is further argued that Petitioner Bank is merely a banking company whose credit card was used to order the said product in question. Counsel further argued that product was sold and advertised by Gift 360 and that Petitioner was only the bank whose credit card was used to order the said product. Both the Petitioner and Gift 360 are separate and distinct legal entities having no relation with each other. Counsel further contended that District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that whenever any consumer opts for EMI payment on a credit card purchase, the whole order amount is remitted to the seller instantly and not in parts, as and when EMIs are paid to the bank. Further, the full amount of product in question was remitted to the seller at the time of purchase and the EMI was being collected by the Petitioner Bank in lieu of its legally enforceable debt. It is further argued that District Forum without any basis demonized and penalized the Bank for its actions i.e. recovery of money from the customer using the Petitioner’s bank credit card service, on whose instructions the amount of the product was paid to Gift 360. The said action is the contractual and statutory right of the Bank. Further, the Bank as a gesture of service and goodwill has refunded the total amount including the late fee and interest. 6.2. Counsel for respondent no.1 argued that Fora below have passed concurrent findings. Also, bare reading of Ex.-1 submitted by complainant makes it clear that Bank was hand in glove with respondent no.2 in selling the disputed jewellery. Further, both the Fora below have rightly placed reliance on Ex. 2, 3, and 4 the letters written by complainant to the Bank wherein no heed was paid by the Bank on these letters. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company ( 2011) 11 SCC 269. 7. We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioners Bank. In this regard, extract of relevant paras of order of State Commission is given below : “During the arguments, Appellant has admitted that a contract was executed between him and OP no.2 and according to said contract, pamphlet of scheme was sent to customers. In this circumstance, the statement of Appellant that they are not liable with regard to the scheme, is erroneous and since the Appellant had sent the pamphlet of the scheme to the parties, they are liable for the same and their liability will not be vanished by a mere denial through an Ex.-1. Alongwith that, it is also clear that order of jewellery set was given by the complainant on the basis of 6 EMIs and set was to be delivered to the complainant within 30 days. When the set was not received within the stipulated time, direction was given by the complainant to the Appellant that payment of balance amount be not made to OP No.2. Inspite of that payment of balance amount was made by the Bank to OP No.2 which itself is deficiency in service. It was the obligation of the Appellant that they should not have made the payment while following the instructions of their customers but the Appellant did not follow the instruction of the complainant. It was also concealed from the Court that what was the contract between the Appellant and OP No.2 and unbelievable statement were given that contract was not placed by them and same has been destroyed, while the complainant was present in 2009 and there was no reason to destroy the contract. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant was clear and this situation also came before the District Forum that Complainant who was customer of Appellant, and not taking care of the interest of the complainant, maliciously proceeded in favour of OP No.2. It has been clarified in CPR 2015 (2) 579 (NC)-Pune Zile Madyawarti SahakariBank Ltd. Vs. Ashok Bayaji Ghogare that there is no place for errors in banking service and no deficiency in service can be expected from the Banks. It is not only a deficiency in service but also an unfair trade practice and in order to provide benefit to OP No.2, caused loss to its customer. In this situation, District Forum has not erred in awarding punitive damages. Thus, on the basis of above conclusion, the appeal is disallowed as it is not accepted. 8. District Forum also after due appreciation of facts and evidences before it concluded that Petitioner bank is liable. We are in agreement with the findings of District Forum and State Commission. 9. As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577] held 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.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8th September, 2022, held that:- “13. 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. 14. 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. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.” 11. We find no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. However, we are of the view that District Forum has awarded a much higher compensation. Hence, in partial modification of para 2 of operating portion of order of District Forum, we hereby order that Petitioner Bank shall pay a total compensation of Rs.25,000/- only alongwith litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant-Respondent no.1. Order of District Forum with respect of payment of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in Rajasthan State Consumer Welfare Fund is set aside. Petitioner Bank shall pay within one month the amounts as per this order along with interest @ 6% p.a. with effect from date of order of District Forum till the date of actual payment. If case Bank has already deposited any amount with the District Forum / State Commission in this regard, interest shall stop on that date. 12. Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly. 13. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off. | 
