1.      This Revision Petition No. 2988 of 2018 challenges the impugned order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) dated 05.07.2018. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 191 of 2018 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (‘the District Forum’) dated 24.05.2018.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he was maintaining a Current Account bearing No.05972560000600 with Respondents No.2 &3/OP1&2. He was agency holder of various newspapers and running a small business by means of self-employment to earn his livelihood. He routinely transferred Rs.4.50 Lakh through NEFT from his said account in favour of M/s Kasturi & Sons Ltd., by issuing three cheques viz. Cheque No.38 dated 09.12.2014 for Rs.1,50,000/-; Cheque No.39 dated 15.12.2014 for Rs.1,40,000/-; and Cheque No.40 dated 22.12.2014 for Rs.1,60,000. As per practice, detail of the account to which the amount was to be transferred was given on the reverse of the cheques i.e. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. Their account number was also mentioned. Name of the complainant was also shown on the reverse as a person making the transaction of payment.

3.      The said amount was debited from his account and, however, was not credited to the account of the beneficiary M/s. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. When the said party raised a demand for the above said amount, it transpired that the Petitioner/OP-3 had transferred the said amount in the name of one Shti Laxman Singh Chahar of M/s Vikas Impex Ltd. of Jaipur. Thereafter, the matter was raised with the appellant, and whereupon an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was reversed to the account of the complainant. However, balance of Rs.2,90,000/- was not reversed/refunded. When no action was taken despite many requests, a Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum. 

4.      Respondents No.2 and 3/OP1&2, in their joint reply, stating that the amount was wrongly transferred to the account of one Laxman Singh Chahar of M/s Vikas Impex Ltd instead of Kasturi & Sons Ltd. It was further said that an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- stands recovered and rest of the amount is payable by the Petitioner bank/OP3.

5.      In their reply, the Petitioner/OP-3 stated that the Complainant was not a consumer as the transaction was commercial in nature. The complainant had mentioned incorrect A/c number, due to which, the money was transferred in the wrong account. When the mistake was detected, some amount was recovered. However, the remaining amount could not be recovered due to insufficient funds in that A/c.

6.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 24.05.2018, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/OP3 as under:

“i. To immediately remit the amount of Rs.2,90,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of debit till realisation. OP-3 shall also pay the amount of Rs.28,638/- i.e. interest paid by the complainant to M/s Kasturi & sons.

ii. To pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;

iii. To pay to complainant Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.  This order be complied with by OP-3 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP-3 filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 05.07.2018 dismissed the same and observed as follows:

“6. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the mistake had occurred on account of wrong account number given by the complainant/its bank on the backside of the cheque which was offered for making payment to M/s Kasturi & Sons Ltd. To say so, our attention was drawn to documents/photocopies through which the payment was made. In all the cheques, it is clearly mentioned that the amount is payable to Kasturi & Sons Ltd. and against the account No. Vikas Goyal was mentioned who sent the amount. Despite all information available with the appellant, the amount was wrongly transferred in the name of Laxman Singh Chahar of M/s Vikas Impex Limited of Jaipur. The  Forum, on analyzing the above said fact, observed as under;

"Per record and reply of OP-3 it is their admitted case on correspondence they have already recovered a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from the account holder, Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar, but, the remaining amount of Rs.2,90,000/- could not be recovered due to insufficiency of funds in his account and further a self-contradictory defence raised that it is yet unclear from Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar, any liability was due to the complainant from him. This is an inconsistent stand. If it was so, then how they recovered Rs.1,60,000/- is ridiculous. May be some e-account number was wrongly mentioned by the complainant, but, there was a name of Kasturi & Sons Ltd. and not that of Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar or Vikas Impex Ltd. Moreover, mistake is admitted one by the ICICI Bank/OP-3 and they have partly recovered the amount. OP-3 cannot wash off their hands from the liability by firstly taking the stand there were insufficient funds in the account of Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar and then in the same breath set up the plea, it is still unclear whether the complainant had any liability to make good regarding Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar. The liability is fastened upon the ICICI Bank i.e. OP-3 due to deficiency in service. No record has been produced, there were insufficient funds in the account of Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar in whose account it was wrongly credited."

7.      It was rightly noticed that the beneficiary was clearly mentioned as Kasturi & Sons Ltd. and not of M/s Vikas Impex Limited. It is further surprising that in the present world of advanced technology, how the amount can be deposited in a different account than the one maintained by the beneficiary. We have seen copy of the cheque. On its backside clearly name of Kasuri & Sons is mentioned. Account number is also mentioned. The account from which amount was to be transferred is in the name of Vikas Goyal and the said name was also mentioned on the cheque. If there was some doubt, before putting the amount in a wrong account number, it was duty on the part of the appellant bank to get it clarified from OPs No.1 & 2/Respondents No.2 & 3, through whom the amount was paid. No effort was made in this regard. Otherwise in ordinary course of transaction, even if there is mistake of one numerical/ alphabet, the bank rejects the cheque and refuses payment. In the present case, transaction was done in a casual manner. The order passed by the Forum is quite justified.

8.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.”

8.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP-3 reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” and role of the Petitioner Bank/OP-3 is limited to the transfer of money into the account number received from the originating Bank. He sought the impugned orders of the lower fora be set aside.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) ICICI Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sarita Vashisht & Anr., R.P. No.1863 of 2016, decided on 12.10.2017 by NCDRC;

(b) Union Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Learning Spiral Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 329;

(c) Subhash Motilal Shah through LRs Vs. Malegaon Merchants Co-op Bank Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 147;

(d) Ranjana Dugar Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1011.

9.      Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant submits that Petitioner/OP-3 is wrongfully taking shelter on the pretext of incorrect e-collection number being mentioned at the backside of the cheque. However, the Respondent No.1/Complainant has mentioned all correct details on the cheques.  He further argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the Fora below and sought to dismissed the Revision Petition with costs.

10.    Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3 submits that Petitioner admitted the deficiency of services on its part by refunding the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- against the total sum of Rs.4,50,000/-.  It is further stated that the act of recovering a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- out of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- by the Petitioner/OP-3 itself shows that the responsibility and/or the duty was on the Petitioner/OP-3 to recover and transfer the amount in the account of the Complainant.  He further argued in favour of the impugned orders passed by the Fora below and sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the Petitioner.

12.    The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the detailed District Forum's order.

13.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now 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. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on 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.

14.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  CA No. 432 of 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed:-

“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. .....”

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

16.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 25.05.2018 is modified to the extent that the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded on account of mental agony and harassment is set aside in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable.

17.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

18.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.