PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     This revision petition filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order  of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1677 of 2008 and First Appeal No.1921 of 2008 which were dismissed by a common order dated  27.02.2013. These appeals were filed against the order dated 09.05.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 968 of 2006.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a statutory Planning Authority under the MP Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 entered into an agreement with respondent no. 2 in 1986 to provide residential plots to members of the respondent society on being certified by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies upon payment of requisite rates/charges. Respondent no 1 filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that having been a member since 1983, she had deposited Rs 2,16,000/- with respondent no. 2 for a plot which had not been done and therefore amounted to deficiency in service. The petitioner had taken the stance that there was no privity of contract between it and the respondent no.1 and that she was not a consumer of the petitioner. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 09.05.2008 and directed the petitioner to execute the lease deed within 2 months. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission against this order. Respondent No 2 also filed an appeal. Both appeals were dismissed by a common order dated 27.02.2013 affirming the order of the District Forum. This order is impugned by the revision petitioner before us.

3.      The order of the District Commission reads as follows:

“Consequently the complaint is admitted and the following order is passed that:

1. That defendant no.1 if any amount is due regarding the development charges on 2003 then deposit within 2 months after getting from the complainant and execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant for the plot no.372/4, area 30-50 sq ft in scheme no.97 part 4, at Rajendra Nagar, Indore, if there is any legal hurdle in execution of the sale deed of the said plot then register any other plot or pay the amount of the lot at the rate of current market rate.

2. The defendants jointly or severally should pay Rs.1000/-for the cost of litigation.”

4.     The petitioner’s case is that a dispute between members or a member of a cooperative society and the society are governed by the MP Cooperative Societies Act. As there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent no. 1, the respondent is not a consumer under the provisions of section 2(d) of the Act. No consideration has been paid to the petitioner directly. The lower fora committed an error in not appreciating these provisions and therefore acted illegally. The petitioner already has a house in her husband’s name and is therefore not eligible.   

5.     On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that the District Forum and the State Commission have considered the matter which was argued by the petitioner on the same lines and have upheld the submissions on behalf of the respondent no 1.  It is argued that the respondent no 1 had deposited the cost of the plot on various dates along with development charges demanded by respondent no. 2 but has not been allotted the plot applied for in Scheme No. 97 Part 4 Rajendra Nagar. It is alleged that despite receiving Rs 2,16,000/- from respondent no. 1 the petitioner and respondent no. 2 did not execute the sale deed of the said plot although name of respondent no. 1 was included at serial no. 54 in the list of members dated 08.03.2004 issued by respondent no. 2 to the petitioner. Her name was subsequently included at no. 31. Despite approaching the petitioner from time to time, there has been no response. 

6.     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 and perused the records carefully. Respondent no.2 was already proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.11.2014. From the facts on record, it is apparent that the lower fora have considered the facts, evidence and arguments which are the same that are advanced before us. There is no new issue that has been highlighted in the course of arguments either.

7.     This Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its own conclusion on facts. It can interfere with the 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 Supreme Court Case 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.   From the documents on record and the arguments advanced, it is evident 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. Findings of facts of the District Forum are based on evidences 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.

11.   It is apparent that foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. These orders are based on evidence on record. The petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse.  I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.