Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 38
Judges: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Can a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) call for a report from a party during the revision stage? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question while hearing an appeal regarding a consumer dispute. The core issue revolved around whether the NCDRC overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by relying on a report it had requested from the State Bank of India (SBI) during the revision proceedings. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, delivered the judgment, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint filed by Sunil Kumar Maity against the State Bank of India (SBI) and another individual, Sunil Maity, at the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur. Sunil Kumar Maity had a savings account with SBI since January 2000. His account number was changed multiple times by the bank. On 15th September 2012, when Sunil Kumar Maity went to deposit money, he was given a new account number 32432609504, which was actually the account number of another customer, Sunil Maity. Subsequently, on 16th January 2013, Sunil Kumar Maity deposited a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000. When he updated his passbook on 11th December 2013, he found only Rs. 59 in his account. The bank informed him that the other Sunil Maity had withdrawn the deposited amount. Sunil Kumar Maity then filed a complaint against the bank and the other Sunil Maity seeking redressal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 2000 | Sunil Kumar Maity opens a savings account with SBI. |
| 24 February 2010 | Sunil Kumar Maity’s account number is changed. |
| 15 September 2012 | Sunil Kumar Maity is wrongly given account number 32432609504 belonging to another customer, Sunil Maity. |
| 16 January 2013 | Sunil Kumar Maity deposits a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000. |
| 25 January 2013 | The other Sunil Maity withdraws Rs. 1,00,000 from the account. |
| 28 January 2013 | The other Sunil Maity withdraws Rs. 2,00,000 from the account. |
| 11 December 2013 | Sunil Kumar Maity discovers only Rs. 59 in his account. |
| 14 May 2014 | Consumer Forum allows the complaint filed by Sunil Kumar Maity. |
| 25 October 2017 | State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partly allows the appeal filed by the bank. |
| 07 June 2019 | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allows the revision petition filed by the bank. |
| 14 June 2019 | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passes the impugned judgement. |
Course of Proceedings
The Consumer Forum ruled in favor of Sunil Kumar Maity on 14th May 2014. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the bank on 25th October 2017, modifying the order of the Consumer Forum by striking off the fine imposed. The State Commission, after examining the documents, noted discrepancies such as the difference in signatures of the two Sunil Maitys and the fact that Sunil Kumar Maity had disclosed the source of the cheque, while the other Sunil Maity had not. The State Commission held that the bank was responsible for the blunder. The bank then filed a revision petition before the National Commission, which allowed the revision application based on a report it had called for from the SBI. The National Commission dismissed the complaint, allowing Sunil Kumar Maity to approach a civil court. The Supreme Court heard an appeal against this order of the National Commission.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, which defines the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission. Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act states:
“21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.—Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before, or has been decided by, any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
The Supreme Court also noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to the institution of civil suits in civil courts.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the National Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for a report from the SBI and relying on it to overturn the findings of the lower forums. The appellant contended that the State Commission and the Consumer Forum had correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The appellant also argued that the National Commission’s observation that the complainant could approach a civil court was incorrect, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to civil suits.
The respondent-bank, on the other hand, argued that the National Commission was justified in interfering with the orders of the lower forums, as they had not undertaken an in-depth appraisal of the case. They also submitted that they would not press the issue of limitation if the complainant filed a suit in a civil court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: National Commission exceeded its jurisdiction |
|
| Respondent-Bank’s Submission: National Commission’s interference was justified |
|
The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in highlighting the procedural impropriety of the National Commission in calling for a report from one of the parties at the revision stage and relying on it to overturn the well-reasoned orders of the lower forums.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the main issue can be identified as:
- Whether the National Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act by calling for a report from the respondent-bank and relying on it to overturn the findings of the State Commission and the Consumer Forum.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the National Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction | The Supreme Court held that the National Commission had indeed exceeded its jurisdiction by calling for a report from the respondent-bank and relying on it. The Court emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited to cases where the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise a vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The Court found that the State Commission and the Consumer Forum had thoroughly appreciated the evidence, and the National Commission’s actions were unwarranted. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
-
CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 – Supreme Court of India: The Court cited this case to reiterate that the requirement of leading detailed evidence cannot be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Consumer Protection Act. The court emphasized that the forums under the Act are meant to determine questions through summary inquiry.
The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provision:
-
Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act: This provision defines the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission. The Court examined this section to determine whether the National Commission had acted within its powers.
| Authority | Type | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 – Supreme Court of India | Case Law | Followed to clarify that forums under the Consumer Protection Act are meant for summary inquiries, not detailed evidence-based trials. |
| Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act | Legal Provision | Interpreted to define the limits of the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: National Commission exceeded its jurisdiction | The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the National Commission had indeed exceeded its jurisdiction by calling for and relying on the report from the bank. |
| Respondent-Bank’s Submission: National Commission’s interference was justified | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the State Commission and Consumer Forum had correctly appreciated the evidence. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed the Authority |
|---|---|
| CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 – Supreme Court of India | The court used this authority to emphasize that the Consumer Protection Act aims for summary inquiries and not detailed trials. |
| Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act | The court interpreted this section to highlight the limited scope of the National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural impropriety of the National Commission’s actions. The Court emphasized that the National Commission overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by calling for a report from the respondent-bank and relying on it to overturn the findings of the lower forums. The Court also noted that the State Commission and the Consumer Forum had thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and passed reasoned orders. The Court found that the National Commission’s reliance on the report from the bank was based on surmises and conjectures, not on a proper appraisal of the evidence. The Court also expressed concern over the National Commission’s observation that the complainant could seek remedy in a civil court, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to civil suits.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Impropriety of National Commission | 40% |
| Thorough Appreciation of Evidence by Lower Forums | 30% |
| Unwarranted Reliance on Bank’s Report | 20% |
| Incorrect Observation about Civil Court Remedy | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is limited.
- The National Commission should not have called for a report from the respondent-bank at the revisional stage.
- The National Commission should not have relied on the report to overturn the findings of the lower forums.
- The State Commission and the Consumer Forum had thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record.
- The National Commission’s observation about civil court remedy was incorrect.
The Supreme Court considered the argument that the lower forums had not undertaken an in-depth appraisal of the case, but rejected it. The Court found that both the State Commission and the Consumer Forum had elaborately appreciated the documents on record and passed reasoned orders. The Court also considered the argument that the bank would not press the issue of limitation if the complainant filed a suit in a civil court, but found it irrelevant as the National Commission’s order was flawed.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“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 report that tries to absolve the respondent -bank of its liability is based on surmises and conjectures as 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 or on account of negligence by the appellant by not keeping the passbook in his safe and proper custody.”
“Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission is in utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in as much as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court.”
There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Key Takeaways
- The National Commission’s revisional powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act are limited and should not be used to re-evaluate evidence already considered by lower forums.
- The National Commission should not call for additional evidence or reports from parties at the revisional stage.
- Orders passed by the National Commission must be in accordance with the law, including the provisions of the Limitation Act.
- Consumer forums are meant for summary inquiries, not detailed trials.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the National Commission and restored the order passed by the State Commission. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is limited and does not allow for re-evaluation of evidence or calling for additional reports at the revision stage. This judgment clarifies the scope of the National Commission’s powers and ensures that the orders of lower forums are not overturned without valid legal reasons. This also reinforces the principle that consumer forums are meant for summary inquiries, not detailed trials.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India clarifies the limits of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that the National Commission exceeded its powers by calling for a report from the bank and relying on it to overturn the well-reasoned orders of the lower forums. The Supreme Court restored the order of the State Commission, emphasizing that the National Commission should not re-evaluate evidence already considered by lower forums, thereby upholding the principles of procedural fairness and the summary nature of consumer dispute resolution.
Category
Parent Category: Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Child Categories: Section 21(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Revisional Jurisdiction; National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; Consumer Dispute; State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India case?
A: The main issue was whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for a report from the State Bank of India (SBI) during the revision stage of a consumer dispute.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the NCDRC’s actions?
A: The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for and relying on the report from SBI. The Court emphasized that the NCDRC’s revisional powers are limited and should not be used to re-evaluate evidence already considered by lower forums.
Q: What is the significance of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in this case?
A: Section 21(b) defines the revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC. The Supreme Court interpreted this section to clarify that the NCDRC’s revisional powers are limited to cases where the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise a vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.
Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the National Commission’s observation regarding civil court remedy?
A: The Supreme Court found the National Commission’s observation that the complainant could seek remedy in a civil court to be incorrect. The Court noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the institution of civil suits in civil courts.
Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment for consumers?
A: The key takeaways are that the NCDRC’s revisional powers are limited, and that consumer forums are meant for summary inquiries. The judgment ensures that the orders of lower forums are not overturned without valid legal reasons. It also clarifies that the NCDRC should not call for additional evidence or reports from parties at the revisional stage.