2022 Supreme(SC) 39

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
SUNIL KUMAR MAITY – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL 432 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 21711 of 2019)
Decided on : 21-01-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to institution of civil suit in Civil Court.
(2) Requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut doors of any forum created under the Act like Consumer Protection Act.
(3) There is a vast difference between exercise of appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction.

Headnote:

(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Applicability – Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to institution of civil suit in Civil Court. (Para 12)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – Banking dispute – Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21(b) of Act is extremely limited – It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within parameters specified in the provision – National Commission could not have sought for a report at revisional stage, that too from an officer of party which already had an opportunity to submit all documents necessary for the purpose of defending itself before Consumer Forum, and as to how such a report in form of an additional evidence produced at revisional stage could be relied upon, in respect of which two fore below had no opportunity to deal with – National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for report from respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to conclusion that two Fora below had erred in not undertaking requisite in-depth appraisal of case that was required – Both State Commission as well as Consumer Forum had elaborately appreciated documents on record and passed reasoned orders – Report that tries to absolve respondent-bank of its liability is based on surmises and conjectures as it abstrusely and without evidence holds that bank has every reason to believe that wrong account number was intentionally inserted by appellant himself for reasons best known to appellant or on account of negligence by appellant by not keeping passbook in his safe and proper custody – Though a party can produce additional evidence at appellate stage, same has to be within four corners of law, that is as contemplated in Order-41, R. 27 of CPC – Party has to establish that notwithstanding 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 decree appealed against was passed – Apart from fact that there is a vast difference between exercise of appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction, no such application was filed by respondent-bank before National Commission – Under the circumstances, calling for report by National Commission on its own from officer of bank was absolutely unwarranted – Requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut doors of any forum created under the Act like Consumer Protection Act – Anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry – Impugned order passed by National Commission solely relying upon suo-motu report called for from respondent-bank during pendency of revision application, being highly erroneous, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside – Order passed by State Commission restored. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12)

Facts of the case:

Matter related to alleged deficiency in service on part of Bank. 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 misappreciation of evidence or superficial appraisal of a case is discernible on the part of the two Fora below.

Findings of Court:

National Commission has grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement of Ld. Counsel for the SBI that it will not press the issue of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court. Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission is in utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act.

Result : Appeal allowed.