Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA
Bank of Baroda – Appellant
Versus
Kumar Trading Company – Respondent
ORDER
This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 29.12.2016 by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no.1665 of 2015 which was disposed of in FA no.1676 of 2014 (counter appeal) filed by the present respondent upholding the order dated 18.11.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar in CC no. 95 of 2012.
2. In brief, the relevant facts are that the petitioner provided a cash credit limit of Rs.2.00 lakh which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.7.00 lakh to the respondent who was running a proprietorship concern, M/s Kumar Trading Company. An insurance cover was issued by respondent no.2 for a sum of Rs.10 lakh for a premium which was debited from the account of respondent no.1 by the petitioner. The policy was taken on 05.05.2010 and was valid for the period 06.05.2010 to 05.05.2011. On the intervening night of 20/21.10.2010 there was a theft in the shop of the respondent and costly mobile phones, accessories, sim cards etc., in which the respondent dealt, were found missing. FIR no.157 dated 29.10.
(1) Review – 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.(2) Error – It is evident....
Revision under Section 21(b) of Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on National Commission.
(1) Revision – It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,....
(1) Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – The NCDRC, under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act (pari materia to Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act), cannot act as a second court of appeal. It cannot int....
Revisional Jurisdiction of NC – Concurrent findings given by Forum & State Commission : No illegality or material irregularity: NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded b....
Concurrent findings of fact from lower fora are binding unless proven perverse or erroneous, restraining re-assessment in revision petitions.
(1) Jurisdiction – Under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the District Forum and State Commission unless there is a....
(1) National Commission - National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record.(2) National Commission - Nat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
