IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) National Commission – The powers of the National Commission are very limited.
(2) Evidence on Record – In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

ORDER

This Revision Petition No. 2988 of 2018 challenges the impugned order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) dated 05.07.2018. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 191 of 2018 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (‘the District Forum’) dated 24.05.2018.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he was maintaining a Current Account bearing No.05972560000600 with Respondents No.2 &3/OP1&2. He was agency holder of various newspapers and running a small business by means of self-employment to earn his livelihood. He routinely transferred Rs.4.50 Lakh through NEFT from his said account in favour of M/s Kasturi & Sons Ltd., by issuing three cheques viz. Cheque No.38 dated 09.12.2014 for Rs.1,50,000/-; Cheque No.39 dated 15.12.2014 for Rs.1,40,000/-; and Cheque No.40 dated 22.12.2014 for Rs.1,60,000. As per practice, detail of the account to which the amount was to be transferred was given on the reverse of the cheques i.e. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. Their account number was also mentioned. Name of the complainant was also shown on the reverse as a person making the transaction of payment.

3. The said amount was debited from his account and, however, was not credited to the account of the beneficiary M/s. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. When the said party raised a demand for the above said amount, it transpired that the Petitioner/OP-3 had transferred the said amount in the name of one Shti Laxman Singh Chahar of M/s Vikas Impex Ltd. of Jaipur. Thereafter, the matter was raised with the appellant, and whereupon an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was reversed to the account of the complainant. However, balance of Rs.2,90,000/- was not reversed/refunded. When no action was taken despite many requests, a Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum.

4. Respondents No.2 and 3/OP1&2, in their joint reply, stating that the amount was wrongly transferred to the account of one Laxman Singh Chahar of M/s Vikas Impex Ltd instead of Kasturi & Sons Ltd. It was further said that an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- stands recovered and rest of the amount is payable by the Petitioner bank/OP3.

5. In their reply, the Petitioner/OP-3 stated that the Complainant was not a consumer as the transaction was commercial in nature. The complainant had mentioned incorrect A/c number, due to which, the money was transferred in the wrong account. When the mistake was detected, some amount was recovered.

However, the remaining amount could not

be recovered due to insufficient funds in that A/c.

6. The learned District Forum vide order dated 24.05.2018, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/OP3 as under:—

“(i) To immediately remit the amount of Rs.2,90,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of debit till realisation. OP-3 shall also pay the amount of Rs.28,638/- i.e. interest paid by the complainant to M/s Kasturi & sons.

(ii) To pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;

(iii) To pay to complainant Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.

11. This order be complied with by OP-3 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP-3 filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 05.07.2018 dismissed the same and observed as follows:—

“6. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the mistake had occurred on account of wrong account number given by the complainant/its bank on the backside of the cheque which was offered for making payment to M/s Kasturi & Sons Ltd. To say so, our atten