ORDER (ORAL)

PER MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER   
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner viz., Sr. Divisional Railway Manager & Anr.  against the order dated 31.05.2018 of the State Commission.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent alongwith other friends and family member was travelling from Haridwar to Jharsuguda by Kalinga Utkal Express on 23.06.2009.  It has been alleged in the complaint that there was no water in the coach and toilets were also locked and she was facing lot of problems during the journey.  It is also mentioned that the complaint was lodged in the complaint-book kept with TTE.  Accordingly, a complaint was filed before the District Forum.  Complaint was resisted by the petitioner, however, the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered for compensation of Rs. 1 lac to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.  The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission being F.A. No. 161/2010.  The State Commission reduced the amount of the compensation from Rs. 1 lac to Rs.30,000/- vide its order dated 31.05.2018. Against this order of the State Commission, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner.  Learned counsel for the petitioner states that concerned TTE has filed affidavit that toilets were properly working and not locked and there was no shortage of water in coaches.  It is also stated that there was no complaint lodged by the respondent either with the guard or TTE in the complaint-book.  Hence, actually there was no deficiency in service on behalf of the petitioner.  Therefore, order of the State Commission and District Forum should be set aside. 
3. I have carefully heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.
4. It has been averred in the complaint that complaint was lodged in the complaint-book kept with the TTE.  In the written statement filed by petitioner though it is mentioned that complainant should have filed complaint with the guard or TTE in the complaint-book, however, the petitioner does not clearly deny that no such complaint was filed.  The State Commission has clearly observed that complaint was filed in the complaint-book kept with the TTE.  In my view, no person would take trouble to file a consumer complaint without facing any harassment or mental agony during the journey.  No person would be able to know how much compensation would be granted to him or her by consumer forum.  Keeping observation of the State Commission in view and the fact that State Commission has already reduced the compensation from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 30,000/-, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission and particularly in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani & Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has observed as under”-
"2.  Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.”
   The Apex Court further held;
“10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers’ office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and, to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of ₹15,000/-even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of ₹12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded ₹3,000/-towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to ₹15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for ₹15,000/-. 
 11. Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani. 
12. We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court. 
13.  Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences. 
    14.  We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether ₹25,950/- for a claim of ₹15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins.” 

5. It is also to be mentioned that both the Fora below have given concurrent finding of the facts that toilets were not working and there was no water in the coach.  The scope under the revision petition is quite limited in such cases.  This Commission cannot reassess the facts in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“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 that 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 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 finding of two fora.”
6. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 31.05.2018 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, R.P. No. 3090/2018 is dismissed.