NCDRC: Concurrent Findings By The District/State Consumer Forums Based On Evidence Cannot Be Substituted In Revisional Jurisdiction

Brief Facts:

The petitioner, Avinash Kumar, booked a flat in the MP Housing Society, Gwalior by depositing the registration fee of Rs 85,000. The respondent company promised to provide high-quality construction, open space, a shopping mall and other facilities in the concerned society. Varying amounts of money including the service tax were collected from the petitioner at different points in time for the same. After the petitioner took possession of the said flat, several defects were found in the flat which were immediately reported but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the District Commission, Gwalior alleging deficiency in service by the respondent. The District Commission partially granted the complaint and instructed the respondent to fix the defects and cover the legal costs. The petitioner was unsatisfied by the decision and appealed to the State Commission, which upheld the District Commission's ruling and added further instructions for the respondent to make a decision on the service charge levied on the petitioner. Still unsatisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the State Commission's order.

The petitioner contended that in order to rectify the defects, he had to spend approximately Rs 2,66,000/- on his own after the respondent refused to rectify them. Further, a closed parking area, as promised in the advertisement, was not provided and the area of the flat was lesser than promised originally.

The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the claims of the petitioner were illegal as no closed parking area was promised originally. Further, the petitioner relied on MP Bhoomi Vikas Rules 1984 which are not applicable in the present case. Moreover, the flat was handled by due inspection and satisfaction of the Housing Board. Thus, there has been no deficiency on the part of the respondent.

Observations of the Commission:

The NCDRC started by citing the decision in the case of Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269, wherein the Supreme Court clarified that the revisional powers of the NCDRC can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error. It further held the petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Commission and the State Commission in appeal. The findings of the said fora were held to be based on evidence led by the parties and documents on record. Thus, the revision petition was looked at as an attempt to urge the NCDRC to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the respondent also failed to show that the findings of the impugned order were perverse.

The NCDRC reiterated the settled position of law that whether two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.

Case: Avinash Kumar Pandey & anr. vs Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and Ors.

Case No.: Revision Petition No. 3401 of 2011

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Mr RK Tanwar

Counsel for the Respondent(s): Mr RC Mishra

Click Here To Read/Download Order