1.  This Revision Petition No.1027 of 2021 filed on 01.12.2021 challenges the impugned order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 08.03.2021.  Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No.163 of 2020. Also Review Application No.5/2021 in Appeal No.163/2020 was also dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 28.10.2021.  In turn, this Appeal had been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (‘District Forum’, hereafter) dated 20.01.2020.  Vide this order, the District Forum, had directed the petitioner/OP-ICICI Bank Ltd. (the ‘OP’, hereafter) to pay Rs.55,177 along with Rs.25,000 as compensation to the Complainant for the mental agony and Rs.2,000 towards the cost of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the District Forum failing with the amount except cost carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realization.

2.      The brief facts as per the Complainant are that he had availed a loan from the Petitioner Bank for purchasing a car. The loan was for an amount of Rs.12,00,000 and was sanctioned on 20.07.2013. The interest charged was 11.5 per annum and the loan was to be repaid in Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) over a period of 5 years. The EMI stipulated was Rs.26,141. The Respondent issued signed undated cheques towards payment of EMIs due from him. His case is that, he believed the instalments to fall due only from a date, 30 days after availing the loan. However, the Appellant presented his cheques before the due dates causing its dishonour.  As a result, his former employee who was a party to the loan was also prejudicially affected. His CIBIL ratings went down. Though he had written a letter to the Petitioner's Manager on 09.07.2016 stating all the above facts, no response was given. Finally, the Respondent paid off the entire balance amount due to the bank on 05.08.2016 and closed the loan, though the loan would have expired only in July 2018.  According to the Respondent, as per the statement of accounts furnished by the Petitioner bank, the balance amount due from him on 15.07.2016 was Rs.5,34,67. However, the closure amount as per the onetime settlement was fixed at Rs.5,68,831. For closure of the entire transaction, the bank insisted, and he had to pay Rs.5,94,972. According to the Respondent, there was no basis for extracting the excess amount which was substantial and he being a senior citizen and a person aged over 80 years ought to have been treated with more decency and compassion. Therefore, by filing a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum he sought return of Rs. 55,177.  

3.      The complaint was contested by the Petitioner/OP that no amount as claimed was either due or payable to the Respondent. According to the OP, Rs.12,00,000 loan was sanctioned to the Respondent with interest @ 11.5%. This was not a hire purchase agreement as alleged. The Respondent authorized the bank to debit from his account each month the instalment due towards repayment of the loan. Accordingly, his cheques were presented due on the 15th of each month, as agreed. However, many of his cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thus, penal interest had to be levied and debited. By concealing these facts he filed the complaint. The Appellant is a public limited bank and is functioning strictly in accordance with RBI guidelines. The money of the bank is public money and therefore non-payment of the instalments on time would attract penal interest, which the Respondent was bound to pay as per the terms of agreement entered into with the bank, while availing the loan. As per banking practice, all details of loan transactions are to be shared with the Credit Information Bureau Ltd. (CIBIL), an independent repository that maintains the cash history of all borrowers across the country. Reports are sent by all banks on a regular basis to the CIBIL. The charges levied and extracted from the Respondent are as per RBI guidelines. Therefore, the Respondent was not entitled to any relief. In addition, the dispute relates to settlement of accounts, which was not maintainable under the Act and, further, the complaint itself was barred by limitation.

4.      The District Forum vide order dated 20.01.2020 partly allowed the complaint and directed to refund an amount of Rs.55,177 and pay Rs.25,000 as compensation to the Complainant for the mental agony suffered and Rs.2,000 towards the cost of the proceedings, within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realization.

5.      On Appeal, the State Commission vide order dated 08.03.2021 confirmed the order of the District Forum dated 20.01.2020 and dismissed the Appeal with costs of Rs.5,000.

6.      It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed.          Counsel for the Petitioner was heard on 06.10.2023 and since no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, he was placed ex-parte. Order was reserved.

7.      Admittedly, the Respondent/Complainant had availed a loan from the Petitioner Bank for purchasing a car. The loan was for an amount of Rs.12,00,000 and was sanctioned on 20.07.2013. The interest charged was 11.50% per annum and the loan was to be repaid in Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI) over a period of 5 years. The EMI stipulated was Rs.26,141. It appears that the Respondent had issued signed undated cheques for payment of EMIs due from him. His case is that, he believed the instalments to fall due only from a date, 30 days after availing the loan. However, the Appellant presented his cheques before the due dates causing dishonour thereof. According to the Respondent, as per the statement of accounts furnished by the Petitioner bank the balance amount due from him on 15.07.2016 was Rs.5,34,671. However, the closure amount as per the onetime settlement was fixed at Rs.5,68,831. For closure of the entire transaction, the bank insisted and the respondent had to pay a total amount of Rs.5,94,972. According to the respondent, there was no basis for extracting the excess amount which was substantial and he being a senior citizen and a person aged more than 80 years ought to have been treated with more decency and compassion.

8.      Upon reviewing the arguments presented and examining the records, including the orders, and reasoning of the District Forum and the State Commission, I am inclined to go with the decision of the learned District Forum which has issued a well-reasoned order based on the documents before it, following hearings and ascertaining from both the Parties. Further, the learned State Commission, after hearing both parties, determined that the order of District Forum required no intervention. In view of the deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in charging and recovering amounts far more than what was actually due, the District Forum was fully justified in ordering the compensation of Rs.25,000. It is a fundamental legal principle that no additional evidence can be allowed that contradicts the established pleadings. Therefore, if the OP's pleadings are inconsistent, additional evidence cannot be permitted at the time of reviewing of order of the Appeal stage against their original claims. This order is now being challenged at the revision stage. It is a well settled position in law that revision 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. Thus, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  I would like to rely upon 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. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, has held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under:-

“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. .....”

9.      Similarly, in a recent the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was 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.

10.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is therefore dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.