IMPORTANT POINT
The scope of revision is very limited. Concurrent finding of both the fora cannot be lightly disturbed.

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 19.12.2018 in Appeal No.361/2018 passed by the U.T. Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

2. Facts in brief are that the Respondent/Complainant purchased railway tickets for four passengers for Rs.10,060/- on 11.11.2016 for their journey from Mumbai to Chandigarh to be performed on 10.01.2017 and ticketing was done from Railway Station Mohali. The Complainant surrendered the tickets on 24.11.2016 and asked for refund. However, Rs.9,220/- was refunded to the Complainant by pay order. The Complainant in the meanwhile filed Consumer Complaint No.CC/885/2017 before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party/Petitioner informing that they have already refunded an amount of Rs.9,220/- and no case was made out in the complaint. The District Forum allowed the compensation of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

3. The Petitioner then preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum vide its order dated 19.12.2018. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

4. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the admission stage.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that as the total amount of the tickets was Rs.10,060/- and as per rules of railways, the refund of Rs.9,220/- was already made to the Complainant, in fact the Complainant has not suffered any mental agony and therefore the fora below were not justified in awarding compensation to the Complainant. The Petitioner is a Government organisation and has to follow the rules of refund and accordingly there is no deficiency on the part of the Petitioner and the Revision Petition may be allowed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused records. There is a concurrent finding by the fora below on the amount of compensation and cost of litigation. Though the amount was refunded by the Indian Railways as per their rules still the Fora below have found that the Complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony. Prima-facie as the Indian Railways have already refunded due amount to the Complainant, the Complainant should not have filed the complaint. However, as the fora below have given concurrent findings and scope under the Revision Petition is quite limited in such situation and this Commission cannot reassess the facts as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:—

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

7. Moreover, the Petitioner is a Government organisation and contesting the case for an award of Rs.10,000/- in total may not be justified looking at the expenses involved in contesting the case. Hon’ble Supreme Co