IMPORTANT POINT
No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation, visible.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the Order dated 17.02.2021 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh (‘State Commission’) in F.A. No. 09 of 2021 arising out of the Order dated 17.12.2020 in C.C. No. 949 of 2019 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (‘District Commission’).

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Revisionist Finance Co. at admission.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 17.12.2020 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 17.02.2021 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3. In the matter in question here, the Complainant applied for a personal loan but the same was declined on ground that his CIBIL score was not good. The Complainant received summons from the District Court for settlement of loan in Lok Adalat at Chandigarh in a case filed by the Finance Co. Some person by the name of Sandeep Sharma S/o Tarsem Lal Sharma of Bassi Pathana had taken a loan of Rs. 54,000/- from the Finance Co. whereas the Complainant was Sandeep Singh S/o Tarsem Singh of Behlolpur.

4. The short point in dispute, thus, relates to the identity of the debtor i.e. whether it was in fact the Complainant or someone else.

5. The District Commission vide its Order dated 17.12.2020 partly allowed the Complaint on contest and made the following Award:

“i. to get the CIBIL score of the complainant corrected.

“ii. pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

“iii. to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

“iv. OP is further burdened with punitive damages of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be deposited by it in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund account head being maintained in the name of Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh which may be utilized under the orders of the competent authority for the purpose of providing legal aid to economically poor persons and weaker sections of society as well as making consumer awareness by holding appropriate programmes. etc.

“This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr. No. (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realisation, apart from compliance of remaining directions.”

6. The State Commission vide its Order dated 17.02.2021 heard the Finance Co. and dismissed its Appeal in limine.

7. It is seen that the State Commission has passed a self-contained well-appraised reasoned Order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Commission. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation, is visible. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. Examining the evidence on record both the Fora below arrived at concurrent findings on the question of fact inherent, conclusively determining that in fact the Complainant was not the debtor i.e. he had not taken the loan. The Award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. Nothing warrants interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

8. The revision, being misconceived and bereft of merit, is dismissed.

9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the Revisionist Finance Co. and to the Respondent Complainant as well as to their learned Counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.

Revision Petition dismissed.