In Revision Jurisdiction, National Commission Can Interfere only In Cases of Substantial Jurisdictional Error: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant applied for a ration card through the Opposite Party (OP) but was repeatedly told it had not been issued. Later, due to irregularities in ration card distribution, a list of ration card holders was published online. Upon checking, the complainant found their name among the Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card holders. When the complainant confronted the Opposite Party, they denied issuing any ration card. Furthermore, the information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act confirmed the complainant's name was indeed on the list. Aggrieved by the Opposite Party's denial and the discrepancy, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking resolution which was allowed by the Forum. The Opposite Party then filed an appeal against the order in the State Commission but the appeal was dismissed. The Opposite Party the filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The Opposite Party contested the jurisdiction of the District Forum, arguing that necessary parties were not included in the complaint. They claimed the complainant's motives were questionable, suggesting the dispute was politically motivated due to upcoming Panchayat elections and the complainant's association with the Opposite Party's competitor. Additionally, the Opposite Party refuted the claim that the complainant had applied for a ration card through them, asserting they were not responsible for issuing ration cards. They provided evidence that ration was regularly supplied to cardholders, including the complainant receiving ration in June 2014. The Opposite Party denied any wrongdoing, emphasizing they never refused to supply ration through the Below Poverty Line (BPL) quota.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on the evidence and arguments presented. Furthermore, the State Commission, after carefully considering the pleadings and arguments, determined in a detailed order that no intervention was warranted on the District Forum's order. The law established 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, conferred very limited jurisdiction on the Commission. In this case, there were concurrent findings with well-reasoned orders. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction of the Commission was limited. After considering all the material on record, no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error was found in the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. observed that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act was extremely limited. It should be exercised only when it appeared that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, had failed to exercise such jurisdiction, or had acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the National Commission's jurisdiction under Section 21(b) allowed it to call for records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute pending before or decided by any State Commission, only when it appeared that the State Commission had exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, had failed to exercise such jurisdiction, or had acted illegally or with material irregularity in its jurisdiction. The National Commission's powers were very limited, and it could only interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission if there was a clear jurisdictional error.

Case Title: Babu Ram Vs. Sartaj Ali

Case Number: R.P. No. 3493/2017