IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) National Commission – The powers of the National Commission are very limited.
(2) Revisional 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) Concurrent Findings – 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

These two Revision Petitions RP/3493/2017 and RP/3494/2017 have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner against impugned orders dated 23.08.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow (‘State Commission’) in FA Nos. 1312 and 1314 of 2016. In these appeals, the Petitioner/Opposite Party appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Orders dated 01.06.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bareilly (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint Nos.34/2015 & 36/2015 wherein both the complaints filed by the Complainants were allowed in part.

2. Since the facts and questions of law involved in both the Appeals are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates and events, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, R.P. No.3493 of 2017 shall be considered as the lead case, and the facts presented below are drawn from Consumer Complaint No. 34/2015.

3. For convenience, the parties are being referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that he applied for a ration card through the Opposite Party (OP) in the year 2000. However, despite repeated inquiries, the OP consistently informed him that the ration card had not been issued yet. In 2013-2014, due to irregularities in the distribution of ration cards to cardholders, a list of ration card holders was published online. Upon checking this list, the Complainant discovered that his name was included among the Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card holders. Upon confronting the OP about his ration card, the OP denied issuing any ration card to him. Subsequently, he obtained information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 which confirmed that his name was indeed present in the list of consumers. Feeling aggrieved by the OP denial and the discrepancy in ration card issuance, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking resolution of the matter.

5. In reply, the OP contested the jurisdiction of the District Forum, claiming that necessary parties were not impleaded in the complaint. It was argued that the Complainant’s motives were questionable as the dispute is politically motivated due to the proximity of Panchayat elections and the Complainant’s association with OP’s competitor. Additionally, the OP refuted the claim that the Complainant had applied for a ration card through them, asserting that they were not responsible for issuing ration cards. The ration was regularly supplied to the cardholders and provided evidence of the Complainant receiving ration in June 2014. The OP denied any wrongdoing and emphasized that they never refused to supply ration through the Below Poverty Line (BPL) quota, although they questioned the Complainant’s eligibility for such benefits given his financial status. Consequently, they urged the dismissal of the complaint.

6. The District Forum in its Order dated 01.06.2016 allowed the complaint in part and granted the following relief to the Complainant:—

“Order

The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to supply ration to the complainant on the basis of his BPL Card per month in future and pay Rs.15000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost totaling to Rs.20,000/- within a month otherwise the complainant will recover Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing this complaint till final payment, through the District Forum.” (Extracted from translated copy)

7. Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Petitioner/ OP filed Appeal No. 1312/2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide Order dated 23.08.2017 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order of the District Forum, with the following observation:—

“The District Forum has stated in the judgment that it is clear from th