Read Time: 10 minutes

Noting that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is extremely limited, the top court has remarked that the same 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.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi made this observation while hearing an appeal filed by one Sunil Kumar Maity against an order of the NCDRC passed in a revision petition filed by State Bank of India, the respondent.

Due to a confusion between two customers of the bank having the same name, the amount belonging to Maity was wrongly deposited into the other customer's account, after the bank officials gave incorrect account details to the petitioner.

The said amount was also later withdrawn by Maity's namesake. Later, a consumer complaint was filed after the bank did not respond to the letter written to it by the appellant.

An order was passed by the District Consumer Forum in Maity's favour and the same was later confirmed by the State Forum while confirming the rest of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, but modifying it to the extent that the order for fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem was struck off.

The Court noted that pending the revision application, the National Commission called for a report on the whole matter from the SBI. Accordingly, a report dated March 19, 2019 was filed by the Regional Manager of the SBI. Relying upon the said report, the National Commission allowed the revision application filed by the bank, by observing inter-alia that though revisional jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 has a defined purview and ambit, it does allow interference if grave mis-appreciation of evidence or superficial appraisal of a case is discernible on the part of the two fora below.

In her judgment, Justice Trivedi remarked,

"This court is at a loss to understand as to how the National Commission could have sought for a report at the revisional stage, that too from an officer of the party which already had an opportunity to submit all the documents necessary for the purpose of defending itself before the Consumer Forum, and as to how such a report in the form of an additional evidence produced at the revisional stage could be relied upon, in respect of which the two fora below had no opportunity to deal with."

The Court further noted that the report that tried to absolve the respondent-bank of its liability was based on surmises and conjectures as it abstrusely and without evidence held 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 or on account of negligence by the appellant by not keeping the passbook in his safe and proper custody.

"The suppositions are contradictory as well as incredulous and fanciful. The appellant did not know the second respondent and would not have known his account number unless given to him by a bank officer. There was no way that the appellant would have known that the second respondent, namely Sunil Maity had an account in the same branch. 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...", said the Court.

It further said that the bank should have been extra cautious given the fact that accounts of the appellant, Sunil Kumar Maity, and the second respondent, Sunil Maity, were with the same bank branch. 

Moreover, the bench said 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 O. 41, R.27 CPC. 

"The party has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Apart from the fact that there is a vast difference between the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and the revisional jurisdiction, no such application was filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission. Under the circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission on its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted", the top court held while allowing the appeal.

Cause Title: Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India & Anr.