[Consumer Protection Act] Revisional jurisdiction of NCDRC "extremely limited": Supreme Court

The revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is extremely limited and should be exercised only within the parameters specified in the said provision, the Supreme Court held on Friday [Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India]..A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi said that such jurisdiction can be exercised when it appears to the NCDRC that the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."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," the Court observed. .By way of background, the appellant Sunil Kumar Maity had to suffer a loss of ₹3 lakh since the bank incorrectly deposited the amount, which was to be credited in his account, to another account with the name of Sunil Maity. This was due to a mix up in giving the account numbers to the two persons due to similarity in their names.When the appellant approached the Consumer Commission, it ruled in his favour.On appeal, the State Commission too upheld the order stating that the mistake was on the part of SBI.Thereafter, the SBI filed a revision petition before the NCDRC under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The NCDRC called for a detailed report from a General Manager of the bank. Based on the report, it ruled against the respondent and allowed the revision petition.The NCDRC stated that revisional jurisdiction allows "interference if grave misappreciation of evidence or superficial appraisal of a case is discernible on the part of the two fora below."This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court. .The top court observed as to how such a report in the form of an additional evidence could be allowed by NCDRC at the revisional stage especially from an officer of the party which already had an opportunity to submit all the documents necessary for the purpose of defending itself before two lower forums."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," the Supreme Court held..The Supreme Court noted that the report which was the basis of the NCDRC order was based on surmises and conjectures."It abstrusely and without evidence holds that the bank has every reason to believe that wrong account number was intentionally inserted by the appellant himself for reasons best known to the appellant. No sane person would deposit cash or cheque meant to be deposited in his account in an account number belonging to another person with similar name," the Bench held.It added the bank should have been extra cautious given the fact that the accounts of the appellant, Sunil Kumar Maity, and the second respondent, Sunil Maity, were with the same bank branch. .The Supreme Court further noted that though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as contemplated in Order 41, Rule 27..The Court, therefore, set aside the NCDRC order and restored the State Commission order, while noting that requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act..[Read Judgment]