IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Jurisdiction - Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction.
(2) Findings - Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered.
(3) National Commission - The power of National Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order.

ORDER

This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 13.09.2017 in First Appeal No.316 of 2002 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.532 of 1997.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the respondent had issued directions to stop payment of a cheque issued by it to M/s Teknotron Information Systems Ltd. which the bank complied with. However, when the cheque was presented again after four months, the same was encashed. It is contended that the fora below have committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining and adjudicating the consumer complaint and appeal filed before them respectively since the respondent is a limited company that issued a cheque admittedly for a commercial purpose to another company, M/s Teknotron Information Systems Ltd. for consideration of goods to be supplied and that ‘commercial purpose’ is excluded under the purview of the Act as per the judgment of this Commission in M/s Goyal’s Timber Technicks Ltd. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, First Appeal No.234 of 2014. Accordingly, the respondent is not a ‘consumer’ according to the petitioner and therefore not entitled to relief under the Act. It is also contended that the respondent sought unjust enrichment through the complaint since the goods had been supplied to it although the case of the respondent was that they were not ‘satisfactorily’ supplied. It is also contended that the respondent had not ensured proper joinder of parties and not impleaded M/s Teknotron Information Systems Ltd. who were a necessary party. The order of the District Commission was, therefore, flawed and the State Commission erred in upholding it in appeal. The assail in this petition is against the order of the State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record.

4. The District Forum, after due opportunity to both parties, had arrived at the finding below:—

“From the aforesaid documentary evidence of the complainant and from the admissibility of the opposite party this fact is proved that opposite party bank has obtained the instructions of stopping the payment of the cheque no. 511232 amounting to Rs 250 000 on 20.09.96. It was the service of the opposite party bank that it would have complied with the directions of the complainant and would not have done the payment of that cheque but according to the admissibility of the opposite party itself they had made the payment of the aforesaid cheque despite of the directions of the complainant. In this manner opposite party bank on making the payment of the aforesaid cheque committed gross negligence in the services provided to the complainant. Resultantly this consumer case of the complainant is liable to be admitted.”

The State Commission considered the submission of the petitioner/bank that the cheque was cleared not deliberately but because of human error and concluded that:—

“Because for the purpose of stopping of the payment of the cheque by the respondent complainant the notice was sent through the letter dated 28.10.1996. Directions sent by the complainant are mentioned in the ledger related to their account but even after passing of the long period this direction sent by the complainant, the cheque in question was presented for the purpose of payment on 04.03.1997. In between, the account was in function therefore for the purpose of stopping of the payment of the cheque by the complainant the directions which were sent were not paid attention to because of the human error as the page of concerned ledger was changed. This argument presented by the ld. advocate of the a