IMPORTANT POINT
Revision – Where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 04.05.2016 in FA/2015/597 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) upholding order dated 23.09.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir, Chhattisgarh (in short, the ‘District Forum’).

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner/opposite party, a bank, had transacted a RTGS money transfer of Rs.4,25,000/- on the directions of the respondent/complainant on 01.11.2014 in favour of Jaypee Cement, Bhilai in their Axis Bank Branch Office, Durg, Chhattisgarh. The transfer was, however, not effected due to a bonafide mistake of the petitioner bank in entering an incorrect account number and while the RTGS request was debited from the respondent’s account it was wrongly credited into the account of M/s Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Dehradun instead. The error in the transaction according to the petitioner is on the part of Axis Bank who it is claimed has not been made a party in the petition rendering the petition liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. The petitioner attempted to resolve the matter through several efforts with Axis Bank, including the filing of a complaint with the Reserve Bank of India. However, the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- was not immediately returned by either Axis Bank or M/s Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Dehradun. However, the sum of Rs.4,25,000/- was finally credited to the respondent on 10.07.2015. The District Forum which was approached ordered in favour of the respondent. Its order was appealed against by the petitioner before the State Commission. The same was, however, dismissed by the impugned order. Hence the present revision petition.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission on the grounds that the respondent/complainant is not a “consumer” under the Act since he had a current account for business purposes and that there was no deficiency in service on its part. Non-joinder of necessary parties is alleged as the liability for the failed RTGS transaction is sought to be fastened on Axis Bank. It is contended that the petitioner had immediately initiated an enquiry and taken up the matter with the collecting bank (Axis Bank) and the fora below failed to appreciate that the liability for the delay was on Axis Bank in recovering the amount from M/s Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd. whose account was with them and was despite its best efforts. It is stated that there was a bonafide mistake in prefixing a zero in the account number which has no adverse effect while transferring the amount through RTGS. It is alleged that the RTGS was settled in the Axis Bank Hub account as there was no mismatch in IFSC code and thereafter the Axis Bank credited the amount in the wrong account. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muni Mahesh Patel, IV (2006) CPJ I (SC) which held that adjudication of disputed factual questions should not be done in summary proceedings. Reliance is also placed on this Commission’s order in M/s Sam Fine O Chem Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India, in CC No. 39 of 2013 dated 12.04.2013 which held that as credit facility was availed for a commercial purpose, the complainant did not qualify as a ‘consumer’ under section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

4. The respondent contends that the petitioner is liable for deficiency in service since despite the debit of Rs 4,25,000/- from his account and levy of service charge of Rs 29,004/-, the transfer of funds though RTGS was not effected by the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner had admitted before the State Commission that a mistake was made by the petitioner bank in entering the account number. The respondent contends that the issue of the respondent not being a consumer was being raised before this Commission for the first time. It is a