NCDRC Cannot Act As An Appellate Court To Re-Examine Facts

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant purchased a plot from a third party(original allottee), proprietor of M/s Prachi Trade Line, through a registered sale deed. Before finalizing, he confirmed with the Opposite Party/OP (owner) that there was no objection to the transfer. He cleared an outstanding payment of Rs. 6,958 and formally requested a transfer of ownership with all necessary documents and fees. The OP claimed a discrepancy in the firm's name (“M/s Prachi Trade Link” instead of “M/s Prachi Trade Line”) rendered the unit inactive and demanded Rs. 75,000 as holding fees and Rs. 2,81,250 as transfer fees. The complainant argued these charges were baseless as no formal name change had occurred, and the production unit remained operational. The complainant sought an order from the District Forum, directing the OP to recognize the unit under his ownership per the Disposal of Land Rules, 1979, and to transfer it without extra fees. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to transfer the plot to the complainant and pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation costs. Consequently, the OP appealed before the State Commission of Rajasthan, which dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the OP filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The OP argued that M/s Prachi Trade Line, the original allottee, failed to start production within the required time and changed the firm's name without approval. The complainant did not provide a No Objection Certificate before purchasing the plot. The OP claimed there was no consumer relationship and the complaint lacked merit. They stated the unit was non-functional at the time of transfer, justifying the transfer fee demand of Rs. 2,81,250. They denied the claim that the name change had no legal effect, highlighting the production delay as grounds for the fee. No official report confirmed production by M/s Prachi Trade Line. The OP denied negligence or unfair practices and sought dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that despite the error, both names referred to the same proprietor, operating from the same plot. The Commission noted that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986, is limited. There was no illegality or material irregularity in the State or District Forum's orders. The decision aligns with Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr. and Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., where it was held that revisional jurisdiction is restricted to cases involving jurisdictional errors or material irregularities. Similarly, in Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., it was held that NCDRC cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine facts. Thus, the orders of the State Commission and District Forum were upheld without interference.

Case Title: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) Vs. Dwarka Prasad

Case Number: R.P. No. 1327/2019

Click Here To Read/Download The Order