In the present revision petition, which has been received by post, there is challenge to the order dated 15^th April, 2010 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short “State Commission).

2.       Brief facts of this case are that petitioner/complainant was a conductor in KSRTC, Bangalore Division. At that time, he became a member in  KSRTC Employees Credit Co-operative Society holding 25 shares of Rs.1,700/-. At the end of 26.2.2009, he was having saving deposits of  Rs.26,322/-. After the end of his service, respondent issued him “No Dues Certificate. “Petitioner got all the claims from  KSRTC. Now, respondent society has to pay the share amount of Rs.1,700/-, saving amount of Rs.26,322/- and two years dividend. In this regard, petitioner approached the respondent  and requested to pay the due.  Since, there was no response, on 4.3.2009 and 29.4.2009, petitioner issued  legal notice for the payment.  However, respondent gave a baseless reply to the legal notice. Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before District Forum claiming the amount due him, with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.5000/- towards damages and litigation expenses.

3.       In the District Forum, respondent took the plea that petitioner  was a member in the society and had taken loan of Rs.17,000/- on 24.1.1994 agreeing to repay in 24 months on the interest @ 15% p.a. and compound interest @ 2% p.a. Accordingly, petitioner got the loan and repaid monthly installments from the salary.  After that, petitioner was removed from the service of KSRTC.  Thus, respondent failed to get the outstanding amount from the petitioner’s salary.  Petitioner has to pay the capital amount of Rs.13,471/-, interest amount of Rs.25,572/-, totaling Rs.39,043/- upto 20.8.2009. After adjustment, petitioner has to pay Rs.10,012/- to the respondent - society.

4.          District Forum, vide its order dated 28.1.2010, dismissed the complaint holding that there is no misconduct or wrong service of the respondent society.

5.          Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before State Commission, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, vide the impugned order.

6.       After filing of the complaint, petitioner did not appear.  Accordingly vide order dated 6^th September, 2010, notice was issued to the petitioner to remain present on the next date of hearing i.e. on 8^th December, 2010 and if he so wishes, can request for legal aid.

7.       On 8^th December, 2010 none appeared for the petitioner and fresh notice was ordered to be issued for 27.4.2011. As per record, notice was duly served upon the petitioner and petitioner filed his written arguments. Thereafter, petitioner sent a letter dated 19^th /25^th July, 2011, stating that this Commission may pass the final order, by accepting his written arguments.

8.       We have gone through the record.

9.       Case of petitioner as per revision petition as well as written arguments by him is that on his removal from service he submitted clearance certificate to the respondent. At no point of time, respondent raised the alleged loan amount in the settlement form circulated to all the departments.  That being so,  respondent is illegally withholding share amount of Rs.1,700/- and another sum of Rs.27,195/- under the thrift deposit amount, including interest and dividend amount upto the year 2009. Further, respondent is not willing to adjust the thrift deposit amount and dividend amount towards the alleged liability of the loan.

10.     State Commission in its impugned order  observed ;

“It is not in dispute that the appellant/complainant has borrowed loan from the respondent to the tune of Rs.17,000/- and when worked out the interest and compound interest, the complainant is due to the respondent/OP to the tune of Rs.39,043. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/OP has re-appropriated 25 shares worth Rs.1,700/- and Rs.26,322/- lying in recurring deposit and 2 years dividend. All together the respondent/OP is withholding to the tune of Rs.29,031/-. So after deducting the amount to be paid by the complainant to the respondent/OOP, the complainant is still due for a sum of Rs.10,012/-. This itself clearly indicates that since the loan sanctioned by the respondent/OP has not been fully repaid, therefore the amount lying in the complainant’s account has been adjusted to the loan borrowed from the respondent/OP. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the DF has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant/complainant has not come with clean hands by suppressing the loan borrowed to the tune of Rs.17,000/- from the respondent and the same has been adjusted. In the result, we pass the following:

Appeal is dismissed.”

11.     Thus, it is apparent from the record that petitioner has not approached the Consumer Fora with clean hands and has concealed the material facts with regard to the loan amount pertaining to the tune of Rs.17,000/- taken from the respondent.  Moreover, there are concurrent findings of facts by the two fora below, which are based on sound reasonings.

12.          Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’). 

13.     It is well settled that the powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order.  

14.          Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654   has observed ;

“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.”

15.     Thus, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under section 21 (b) of the Act,  since two fora below have given cogent reasons in their order, which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.

16.     In the result, revision petition stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.