NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Department Purchase Central In-Charge
(DPC) – Petitioner
versus
Krishna Barman and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.944 of 2020, Revision Petition No.945 of 2020 and Revision Petition No.946 of 2020
Decided on 5.4.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
Cause of action if a continuous one in nature, complaint cannot be barred on ground of limitation.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 2(1)(c) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(6)] – Agricultural produce – Jute – Dispute as to purchase price – Scope – Complainants were farmers of seasonal crops. – It was their contention that Jute price was fixed at Rs. 3800/- – Rs.4200/- per quintal as per memo No.Ro/CoB/2011-13, dated 15.5.2012 – Petitioner, however refused to purchase the same at aforesaid price – Jute Corporation of India agreed to purchase @ Rs. 2200/- per quintal – Challenge against – Contention of petitioner that purchase price of Jute @ Rs. 3800/- to 4200/- is a commercial price and not MSP – However, petitioner could not brought on record any document which could show that the purchase price of Jute @ Rs. 3800/- to Rs. 4200/- per quintal was a commercial price and not the price at which the petitioner was procuring Jute from farmers – Since cause of action was a continuous one, complaint not barred by limitation – Concurrent findings of Fora below based on evidence as record – Interference with declined.

Held: The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Foras below only when there is perversity in the order or where there is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction. A finding can be said to be perverse when it is based on evidences which do not form part of the record or where the material piece of evidence, on record has not been considered. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013(2) CPR 14 (SC): (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held as under:

“23. 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 than 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 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 findings of two Fora”.

Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

In the present case, the Petitioner was the Jute Corporation of India and it was assigned by the Government of India with the duty to purchase the jute from the farmers @ MSP rate. The Petitioner has itself admitted in para 11 of their written statement that they have been purchasing the jute every year and they had purchased huge quantity of jute from the farmers of the locality and the surrounding nearby village. Their contention is that the Complainants had never approached them for selling their jute produce. However, the evidences on record, as discussed by the Foras below, show otherwise. The Complainants did approach the Petitioner for the sale of their jute produce but it appears that they were not given the appropriate price of the jute. The contention of the Petitioner is that the MSP of the jute during the relevant time, i.e., 2010-2011 was Rs.2,200/-. However, no document to this effect has been produced by the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner states that they had purchased huge quantity of jute from the other farmers, however, the price at which the jute was purchased is neither disclosed nor any document has been placed on record to show such a price. The contention of the Complainant was that the purchase price of the jute was Rs. @ Rs.3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal in the year 2010-2011 and for that they have relied on the letter dated 15.05.2012 of the Petitioner. The argument of the learned Counsel that it was a commercial price and not the MSP has already been dealt with and rejected. It is also argued before me that this letter was issued in respect to a query regarding the commercial price of the jute. There is nothing in the letter which can suggest that the prices mentioned therein were commercial prices. The Petitioner, therefore, has not placed on record any document which could show that the purchase price of the jute @ Rs.3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal was a commercial price and not the price at which the Petitioner was procuring jute from the farmers. The farmers continued to approach the Petitioner for selling their produce to the Petitioner who was authorised to purchase. Therefore, the cause of action was a continuous one and the Complaint was not barred by limitation.

The findings of the Foras below which are concurrent in nature are based on cogent evidences on record and there is no perversity in the impugned order.

I found no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The Petitioner has also failed to point out that the Foras below have acted without jurisdiction. The present Revision Petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed in limine. (Paras 9 to 14)

Result: Petition Dismissed.