The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 03.02.2021 of the State -2- Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (for short “the State Commission”) in their Appeal No.2466 of 2017 filed against the order dated 10.10.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Chickmagalur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.129 of 2014. Petitioner was the Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased roofing board through the agent of the Petitioner. The Complainant got them installed and when the purpose for which the boards were purchased, was not served, he complained to petitioner. The Complainant found out that the roofing material which was supplied to him as roofing boards was not the boards for the purpose of roofing but the boards which could be used only for flooring purpose. His grievance was not resolved by the Petitioner. Thereafter, he filed the Complaint before the District Forum. 3. In the Complaint, notice was served upon the Opposite Parties. Parties filed their documents and evidences. After hearing the parties at length and after perusing and assessing the evidences on record, the District Forum issued the following directions: -3- “: O R D E R : - The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- Op 2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.5,40,440/- (Five Lakh Fourty Thousand Four Fourty) and Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) towards installation charges along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees only) for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and litigation expenses Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand Rupees only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- The complaint against Op 1 is dismissed.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.”
4. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum filed the Appeal before the State Commission wherein they had raised the similar contentions, which they had raised in the Written Statement before the District Forum, that the materials supplied by them to the Complainant were meant for the use of roofing purpose as well as for flooring purpose. The State Commission after re-assessing and re-appreciating the evidences on records and relying on the evidences which were produced before the District Forum concluded that the contention of the Appellant was not supported by any evidence on record and that they had supplied the correct material to the Complainant. 5. Aggrieved, the present Revision Petition has been filed with the same contention that the material supplied to the Complainant was meant both for roofing purpose as well as for flooring purpose -4- and that there was some defect in the installation of the said material and therefore, the Petitioner was not liable for any compensation as there was no deficiency in service on their part. 6. It is settled proposition of law that this Commission has a very limited revisional jurisdiction. It is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidences on record and then to reach to its own conclusion on facts, especially when the findings on facts are concurrent. This Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Foras below only when there is perversity in the order or where there is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction. It has been so held by 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”. -5- 7. Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has 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.” 8. In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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.” 9. It, therefore, is apparent that the orders of the Fora below can be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction only when there is a jurisdictional error or the order is perverse. An order can be said to be perverse order if it is based on no evidence or where -6- the material piece of evidence on record has been neglected. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he had filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner but the said objections were not considered by the Fora below. He, however, on enquiry admits that the objections to the Local Commissioner’s report were the same which had been raised by the Petitioner in their Written Statement. The Fora below have duly considered all the contentions raised in the Written Statement. Admittedly, the goods supplied to the Complainant were not the roofing boards. The Local Commissioner appointed by the District Forum clearly gave his finding that the boards supplied could not be used for roofing purposes. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, although, has argued that the boards supplied to the Complainant could be used for roofing purposes also but no expert opinion on this count or any material to suggest that the boards supplied to the Complainant could be used for roofing purpose, has been produced by the Petitioner. The Petitioner could have very well produced such evidence because it is they who manufacture the boards with specifications justifying the use of the boards. Having not done so, mere objections raised to the report of the Local Commissioner is not sufficient to belie or deny the observations -7- made by the Local Commissioner. It, therefore, is apparent that the findings of the Fora below are based on the evidences on record. It is not a case where the findings are based on no evidence or any material piece of evidence on record has been neglected. We found no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order. No jurisdictional error has also been pointed out. The present Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. | 
