IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce new evidence at the revisional stag.
2) Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision Jurisdiction of this Commission

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1444 of 2018, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. The case of the Complainant/Petitioner is that the he had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- with Opposite Party No. 3 on the assurance of refund of Rs.40,375/- on maturity. On 25.11.2015, Original Documents related to the deposit were submitted with Opposite Party No.3. However, Opposite Party No. 3 failed to refund the assured amount even after repeated requests by the Complainant. On 10.04.2017, the Complainant sent a legal notice, but it was not replied by either of the Parties. Aggrieved by non-payment of the maturity amount alongwith interest, the Complainant preferred Consumer Complaint No.331/2017 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mysore with following prayer:-

The amount calculated above is added with the following prayer:

“The Complaint respectfully pray’s this Hon’ble forum that this complaint be kindly allowed and the opposite parties be kindly directed to pay the complainant the amount of Rs.77,375/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand three hundred seventy five only) along with the unpaid interest on maturity amount as claimed and described in para 6(a). to (e), and also further interest at 18% from the date of the order on this complaint if not made within 30 days of the order passed by this honourable forum, along with Rs.100/- fir each day of default. The forum may also please award me such other exemplary damages and relief as it deems fit taking the pitiable circumstances the complainant is placed.”

3. The Complaint was contested by Opposite Party No.1, who filed reply. Opposite Parties Nos.2 & 3 did not file reply. Opposite Party No.1 appeared. Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The District Forum, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and perusing the record observed that the Complainant did not place any material evidence to establish that he had paid Rs.25,000/- to the Opposite Parties, except the legal notice dated 10.04.2017, calling upon the Opposite Parties to refund the maturity sum of Rs.40,375/-. The Complaint was, therefore, dismissed by the District Forum.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed First Appeal No.1444 of 2018 before the State Commission. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and perusing the record, the State Commission held that the Complainant failed to establish that he had deposited Rs.25,000/-. He, however, produced a receipt issued by the Opposite Party, bearing No.628207 dated 26.04.2001, which showed that the Complainant had paid only an annual instalment of Rs.4500/- towards the total deposit amount of Rs.25,000/-. The receipt issued by the Opposite Parties/Respondents is with respect to the allotment of a plot. In case the Complainant wanted to buy the plot, the Opposite Parties were ready to allot the plot, otherwise the Complainant would be paid amount of Rs.40,375/-. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal and upheld the findings of the District Forum.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant preferred Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer-

“a) Set aside the Impugned Judgement and Final Order dated 04.01.2021 Passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Re