IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) National Commission – It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on National Commission.
(2) Revision Jurisdiction – Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
(3) 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. 2761 of 2015 challenges the impugned order of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘the State Commission’) dated 18.09.2015. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No.524 of 2009 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siwan (‘the District Forum’) dated 05.11.2009.

2. Briefly, the case of the Respondent No.1/Complainant is that she deposited Rs.875/- and Rs.l60/- to the Petitioner for opening Postal Life Insurance Scheme but it was not started. Being aggrieved, she filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3. The Petitioner could not appear as no notice was served to him. Hence, ex-party order was passed against the Petitioner. However, the Respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared and contested the case stating that the complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party and the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned District Forum, vide Order dated 05.11.2009, directed the Petitioner/OP1 and Respondent No.3/OP3 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- within two months otherwise 15% interest will be payable. As the main responsibility lies on the Petitioner/OP1 to compensate the Complainant as he did not deposit the collected amount in the Department for which the policy was not issued. Thus, it was ordered that the Respondents No.2&3/OP2&3 may recover the ordered amount from the Petitioner/ OP1 and pay the ordered amount to the Complainant in case the same is not paid within the period of two months.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 18.09.2015 directed as follows:—

“Having considered the submissions of appellant, respondent Post Office, Siwan and Superintendent of Post Office, Siwan and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the District Forum has considered all aspects of the matter in right perspective. The appellant accepted the amount of premium of Postal Insurance Scheme from the complainant and issued receipts. He was not a competent authority to issue Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant. The respondent No. 2 & 3 seems to be the competent authorities who could not issue Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant. Appellant only is not a service provider but respondent No.2 & 3 are service provider and the complainant is a consumer of the respondent No.2 &3. Complainant cannot be a ‘consumer’ of appellant only. When the appellant issued receipts of the amount deposited, he cannot be a fully responsible for non-issuance of Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant. The District Forum has rightly directed the respondent No. one and three to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- within two months otherwise 15% interest will be payable. The amount so accepted has allegedly not been deposited in the account of the Postal Department. For that, the complainant cannot be suffered a loss. We do not find any illegality or error in the District Forum order and there is no cogent reason to defer with the observation of the District Forum. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.”

5. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Petitioner was working as Development Officer and Postal Department assigned him duty to collect the money from the persons who are willing to have Postal Life Insurance (PLI) and issue them receipt. The Petitioner deposited the said amount collected by him to the Postal Dept vide letter No.LFO-PLI/05-06 dated 29.08.2005. He, therefore, asserted that the Petitioner has no role to issue any policy to anyone and he shifted the responsibility o