PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

        This revision petition assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 755/2018 dated 13.12.2018 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Forum IV, Jaipur (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 10.04.2018.       

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a pensioner of the State government who is entitled for free medicines from the petitioner, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd. and to be reimbursed for any medicines that are not available against bills within a maximum period of three months. The respondent had approached the District Forum seeking relief for delay in reimbursement by the petitioner in respect of certain medicines procured by him in 2010 which were not reimbursed even after legal notice. He had claimed that as per Rule 14-A(V) of the Rajasthan Pensioner Medical Funds Rules provide for settlement of pensioners’ bills as early as possible but not later than three months. It was the petitioner’s case before the District Forum that the medical bills are required to be paid for against availability of funds and on a first come, first pay basis and the bills were settled on the basis of this policy. The respondent had sought reimbursement and interest on the delayed payments.

3.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur IV, Jaipur (in short, ‘the District Forum) vide its order dated 10.04.2018 has allowed the appeal of the respondent and ordered as under:

In this case admittedly the payment of the bills of the complainant has been paid as such, August 2010 bill paid in March 2011, September 2010 bill was paid in April 2011, October 2010 bill was paid in May 2011, November 2010 bill was paid in July 2011, December 2010 bill was paid in July 2011 and February 2011 bill was paid in April 2011. Whereas as per rules of the Rajasthan Pensioner Medical Funds rules 14 A (v) the bills were to be paid within three months. The bill of August 2010 for Rs.2462/- was to be paid November 2010 which was paid as late as 4 months in March 2011. In the same way the bill of September 2010 for Rs.4241/- was payable by December 2010 but was late paid 4 months later in April 2011. The bill for Rs.2430/- of October 2010 was payable in the month of January 2011 but was paid five month late in May 2011. The bill for November 2010 for Rs.4277/- was payable in February 2011 but was paid seven months in July 2011. The bill for Rs.1207/- filed in December 2010 was payable in March 2011 but was paid 4 months late in July 2011. Only the bill filed by the complainant in February 2011 for Rs.4204/- is found to be paid within the stipulated time of April 2011.

In this regard the counsel for the defendant no.1 stated that when the funds are made available by the defendant no.2, the bills are paid on first come first service (paid) basis, hence, no liability of any kind can be fastened upon the defendant no.1 But as the Rule 14 A (v) of the Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Funds rule provide that the cooperative society should ensure that the bills are paid as early as possible but in no case later than three months. The defendant no.1 is also liable for the reimbursement of the medical bills in due time.

        Hence, it is held that the defendants have committed deficiency in service in not paying the medical bills of the complainant from August 2010 to December 2010 within the prescribed time of three months of the Rajasthan Pensioners Medical Refund rule 14 – A (v) as the bills were paid as late as found months, four months, five months and four months which is deficiency in services and the defendents are liable for the same and we deem it to pass the following order:

Consequently the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and it is ordered that the defendants jointly and severally would pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of today within a period of two months on the bill of August 2010 for Rs.2462/- for a period of four months on the bill of September 2010 on Rs.4241/- for a period of four months, on the bill of October 2010 for Rs.2430/- for four months, on the bill of November 2010 for Rs.4277/- for a period of five months and on the bill of December 2010 for a period of four months.

In addition to this being the medical bills were paid at after time period, the defendants would pay jointly and severally the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- for mental agony and Rs.2500/- for cost of complaint within a period of two months from today.”

4.     The petitioner herein approached the State Commission in appeal against this order after a delay of 139 days which was not reasonably and adequately explained. The State Commission proceeded to dismiss the appeal in limine.

5.     The petitioner is now before this Commission by way of a revision petitioner alleging that the State Commission has erred in dismissing his appeal no. 755/2018. It is contended that the said order is perverse and needs to be quashed on the ground that the respondent is admittedly a State government pensioner and that the petitioner is only an agent on behalf of the State government for which he receives no consideration and that the respondent is a defaulter under the scheme. His prayer is to “allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur”.

6.     Heard the learned counsels for the revisionst and the petitioner in person and perused the records carefully. In the instant case there are concurrent findings on facts by the District Forum and the State Commission in favour of the respondent/complainant. The revision petitioner has urged the same grounds that he had urged in the District Forum and additionally argued that the petitioner is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he was a retired government official and as a pensioner was required to approach the Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal as this was a service matter. The respondent has argued that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act as the delay of 139 days was not adequately and sufficiently explained and that the District Forum’s order in his favour was rightly affirmed.

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 especially when the findings on the facts of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent 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 SCC 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.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs and Ors vs N Madhava Rao and Ors, dated 05.04.2019 has again held as under:

“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

11.   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. Concurrent findings of facts of these two foras are based on evidences led by the parties 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.

12.   Foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. It is apparent that the fora below have based their findings on evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse. 

13.   It is a settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in the revisional jurisdiction.

14.   I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.