Revisional Jurisdiction Of National Commission Is Limited In Nature: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant was a member of the Primary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank and applied for a loan. The bank approved a loan of Rs. 1,74,900 with an agreed interest rate of 15% p.a. and 2% penal interest for defaults. The complainant provided all necessary documents, including an equitable mortgage as security. After utilizing the loan, he repaid the principal and interest, citing a waiver of the loan by the State Government under the 'Damdubat' scheme. Despite this, the bank failed to return the original documents, claiming outstanding interest from him. Feeling aggrieved by this deficiency, the complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, seeking the return of original documents, refund of Share Capital amounting to Rs. 8,860, issuance of a loan clearance certificate, and any other appropriate relief. The District Forum Allowed to complaint and consequently the bank appealed to the State Commission of Karnataka which upheld the District Forum's order. Being aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the bank filed the Revision Petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The bank contended that the complainant had not fully repaid the principal amount and disputed the accuracy of his claim regarding interest payments. According to the bank, the complainant owed Rs. 45,450. After deducting the share of Rs. 8,860, his liability was reduced to Rs. 36,555. The bank sought clarification from the government regarding the 'Damdubat Scheme', and in response, the government directed the bank to recover the interest from the complainant. Neither the complainant nor the government had paid the interest owed. The bank alleged that the complaint was filed solely to harass them.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that that it is a well-settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which corresponds to Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986, confers very limited jurisdiction on the commission. In this case, there are concurrent findings of fact, and the commission's revisional jurisdiction is limited. After due consideration of the material on record, no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error was found in the impugned order passed by the State Commission that would warrant interference under Section 21(b) of the Act. The commission referenced the Supreme Court decision in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., which emphasized the extremely limited nature of the National Commission's revisional jurisdiction. It can only be exercised when the State Commission has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or acted with material irregularity. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022), it was held that the National Commission's powers are very limited. The National Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The commission cannot interfere with concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission based on the evidence on record.

Based on the above discussion, the commission found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it, upholding the State Commission's order with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Primary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Ltd Vs. Anantharamegowda

Case Number: R.P. No. 1055/2017