1.      This Revision Petition No.1656 of 2019 challenges the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) dated 30.01.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No. 12/2019 with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited Consumer Welfare Fund and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur Fourth (‘the District Forum’) dated 08.10.2018.

2.      As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 76 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.  For the reasons stated in I.A. No.11509/2019, the delay is condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he boarded the Petitioner's bus from Ajmer to Jaipur and presented ₹110 to the bus conductor. The general fare for the journey was ₹146. With 30% concession being Senior Citizen, the reduced fare was calculated at ₹108. The Complainant requested the conductor to return ₹2, as he had paid ₹110, but the conductor refused. The fare calculation of ₹110 was fixed by the ticket machine. He alleged unfair trade practices and sought compensation for the overcharge of ₹2. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum regarding a discrepancy in fare charged by the Petitioner for a bus journey and sought refund of Rs.2/- along with interest, compensation and costs.

5.      In reply filed before the District Forum, the Petitioners/ OPs averred that no unfair trade practices were involved and that the fare was calculated automatically by the ticket machine based on existing fare structures. The fare adjustments were made in multiples of ₹5 according to an office order dated June 2015. The system was designed this way to handle practical issues, such as the lack of exact change and to ensure that fare collection runs smoothly. For instance, if the fare is ₹107, only ₹105 would have been charged. The fare adjustments, though small, were part of a broader system where such variations ultimately balance out over time, with some passengers paying slightly more and others slightly less, depending on distance travelled. The OPs denied any excess charge or misconduct and argued that the conductor had acted correctly per rules. Therefore, the OPs claimed that the complainant/ respondent's request for compensation was not justified.

6.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 08.10.2018, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/OPs as under:

“ORDER

Therefore, by accepting the complaint of the complainant, it is directed the respondent to pay the excess amount of Rs.2/- collected by the respondent from the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its collection i.e. 28.02.2017 to the complainant, within a period of two months.

Besides above, a sum of Rs.2,500/- as damages towards mental pain etc. and a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation charges be also paid by the respondent to the complainant within two months from today.

On non-compliance of this order within two months, the respondent is liable to pay an interest @12% per annum on the above said amounts to the complainant till realization.

Remain prayers of complainant is not accepted.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission vide order dated 30.01.2019 dismissed the said Appeal with following observations:

  “Heard the Appellant. The concerned Order of the District Forum and Circular were perused.

  The situation has not been cleared, under which law the Circular dated 12.06.2015 is issued. The recovery of excess amount from fixed amount is unfair trade practice under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and in this condition, the collection of excess amount on the basis of Circular cannot be justified. Appellant has no right to collect excess amount from the fixed amount from the consumer. If the Appellant wants to solve their own difficulty, they were free to collect the amount of Rs.105/- (Rupees One Hundred Five) instead of Rs.108/- (Rupees One Hundred Eight) by applying the multiple in amount of five. Therefore, the District Forum has passed the Order properly. The appeal being without any force is not acceptable, hence rejected, simultaneously, the appellant is directed under Section 14(f) of Consumer Protection Act that the Circular dated 12.06.2015 be withdrawn with immediate effect and may not conduct such behaviour in future. Seeing unfair practice of appellant, appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), which amount is to be deposited by the appellant in State Consumer Welfare Fund within one month, otherwise interest @ 09% per annum is liable to be paid on the said amount.”     (Extracted from translated copy)

8.      The learned counsel for Petitioners reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and asserted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner/OP as they acted upon a circular issued by the Competent Authority of the OP. Therefore, the lower fora erred in granting compensation, in absence of any clause in the discount scheme. The staff followed office order. He sought to allow the present Revision Petition. 

9.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant argued in favour of concurrent findings of the fora below. He further contended that the Petitioners/OPs have already complied the order passed by the State Commission and the District Forum in execution petition. He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition as infructuous, with costs.

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

11.    The primary dispute in this case is whether the collection of fare as stated constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? The complainant asserted an excess fare of ₹2 was charged from him despite his entitlement to senior citizen concession and it should be refunded along with compensation and litigation costs. On the other hand, the OPs defended their actions, asserting that the system of collection of fare is in line with a circular issued by petitioner Transport Department mandating fare calculations to be rounded in multiples of ₹5, to address practical issues such as the availability of change and system limitations in accurately calculating fares. These contentions were addressed in detail by the fora below.

12.    The learned District Forum rendered a detailed and 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. Also, there are no significant grounds are reasons are advanced by the Petitioners/OPs which entail interference with such detailed and well reasoned orders.

13.    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.

14.    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. .....”

15.    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.

16.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition No.1656 of 2019 and the same is, therefore, Dismissed.  

17.    All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly     .