Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
SMC Global Securities Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Anil Kasliwal and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.147 of 2020
Decided on 1.7.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Swastika Kumari, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) New evidence - The Petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce new evidence at the revisional stage.
(2) Re-appreciation of Evidence - Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] -Revision against order of State Commission – Services – Banking Services – Fixed Deposit Scheme – Adducing new evidence at Revisional Stage – If permissible - The case on hand relates to the Fixed Deposit amount. It is the case of the Complainants that they submitted the original Fixed Deposit Receipt to the Petitioner. In the reply filed before the District Forum, Petitioner had not clarified whether they forwarded the FD Receipt to Opposite Party No.1 for encashment. The District Forum held the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 deficient in service and directed to make payment jointly and severally. State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum. There are concurrent findings of fact. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce new evidence at the revisional stage - Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice - Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 10 to 13].
Result: Revision dismissed.

ORDER

The Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 against order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1048/2017of 2018, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. Complainants are the husband and wife. Opposite Party No.1 is a Financial Company. Opposite Party No.2/Petitioner is the Broker of Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainants/Respondents Nos.1 and 2 is that on 16.01.2013 they made fixed deposit of Rs.3 lakhs in a scheme launched by Opposite Party No.1, Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. for one year, vide FD receipt No.1205067. As per the scheme, the Complainants were to receive 11.5% interest on maturity. The Complainants got the FD renewed for a further period of one year with the same terms & conditions. Due to financial constraints, the Complainants approached the Petitioner for encashment of the FD and submitted the FD receipt before the Petitioner for onward submission to Opposite Party No.1/Finance Company. Despite submission of the FD receipt, the Complainants did not receive the amount. On 15.03.2016, the Complainants served a legal notice on the Opposite Parties, but in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with the following:—

“(1) The defendants be directed to stop such unfair trade practice with immediate effect.

(2) The defendants be directed to pay jointly and/or individually the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith the interest on Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of maturity of fixed deposit i.e. 15/01/2015 till the date of disposal of the complaint @ 18% to complainant.

(3) The defendants be directed to pay jointly and/or individually an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and economic loss suffered to complainant.

(4) The defendants be directed to pay jointly and/or individually an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of repute caused to the complainant in the society due to the negligence and defect of defendants.

(5) The defendants be directed to pay jointly and/or individually Rs.35,000/- towards the complaint and legal expenses.

Therefore, the defendants may kindly be directed to pay jointly and/or individually a total sum of Rs.5,35,000/- along with the interest on Rs.3,00,000/- @ 18% from 05/01/2015 till the disposal of complaint.”

3. Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 stated that since the Complainants had invested money for the purpose of earning profit, they were not Consumers under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, Opposite Party No.2 stated that they were working as a broker and their role was very limited. They received the application form and money on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and forwarded the same to Opposite Party No.1. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Further, there was no privity of contract between the Complainants and Opposite Party No.2 It was Opposite Party No.1 which was responsible for deficiency in service, if any. Consumer Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Complainants and Opposite Party No.2, the District Forum, vide order dated 04.05.2016, partly allowed the Complaint. Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded ex-parte. The order of the District Forum reads as follows:—

“Hence, admitting the complaint of the complainant, order is given that the Opposite Parties severally and jointly must pay amount of the FD No.1246758 (Annexure-3) of Rs.3.00 lakhs along with the interest w.e.f. 05.01.2014 till its payment to the complainants within a period of two months.

Apart from the above, the opposite parties severally and jointly will pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.1000/- and Rs.5,000/- as mental relief and cost of litigation respectively within a period of two m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document