The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by AVM J. Rajendra, recently clarified that it can only step in to revise a ruling made by a State Commission if the State Commission has overstepped its authority, failed to use its powers, or conducted itself unlawfully or improperly.
Let’s dive into the details of the case:
The person who raised the complaint was a member of the Primary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank. He applied for and received a loan of Rs.1,74,900 with an interest rate of 15% per annum and a penalty interest of 2% for any delayed payments. He gave all necessary documents, including a mortgage, as security. After using the loan, he repaid the principal and interest, citing a loan waiver from the State Government under the ‘Damdubat’ scheme. However, the bank didn’t return his original documents, claiming he still owed some interest. Unhappy with this, he approached the District Forum, asking for the return of his documents, refund of his Share Capital of Rs.8,860, a loan clearance certificate, and any other suitable relief. The District Forum ruled in his favor, but the bank wasn’t pleased and took the matter to the State Commission of Karnataka, which supported the District Forum’s decision. Still not satisfied, the bank took the matter to the National Commission.
The bank argued that the complainant hadn’t completely paid the principal amount and questioned his statements about the interest payments. According to the bank, he still owed Rs.45,450. After subtracting the share of Rs.8,860, his remaining liability was Rs.36,555. The bank asked the government for clarity on the ‘Damdubat Scheme’, and the government told the bank to recover the interest from the complainant. Neither the complainant nor the government had paid the outstanding interest. The bank believed that the complaint was made just to cause them trouble.
The Commission pointed out that its power to revise decisions under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (equivalent to Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986) is quite limited. After examining the evidence, it didn’t find any wrongdoing, significant error, or jurisdictional mistake in the State Commission’s order that would need interference under Section 21(b) of the Act. The Commission referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., which stressed that the National Commission’s revisional powers are extremely limited. It can only be used if the State Commission has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, or acted with a significant irregularity. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022), it was stated that the National Commission’s powers are quite limited. It can only step in if the State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to use its jurisdiction, or acted unlawfully or with a significant irregularity. The National Commission cannot interfere with concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission based on the evidence on record.
After this discussion, the Commission saw no merit in the bank’s request for a revision and dismissed it, thereby upholding the State Commission’s order. No additional costs were ordered.
Case Title: Primary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Ltd Vs. Anantharamegowda
Case Number: R.P. No. 1055/2017
In simpler terms, this judgment emphasizes that the powers of the National Commission to intervene and revise decisions are quite limited. It’s a reminder for all consumers and businesses that the National Commission respects the judgments made at the state and district levels, provided they have been conducted within the law and with proper procedures.
