IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Revision – 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 this Commission.
(2) Evidence – 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

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 02.11.2016, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2449/2011. In this appeal, the Petitioners/Opposite Parties appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 31.05.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya (the “District Forum”) in CC No. 21 of 2011 wherein the complaint by the Complainant/Respondent was allowed.

2. This Revision Petition was filed with a delay of 63 days. Considering the reasons stated in IA No. 8346/2017 and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.

3. For ease of reference, the parties mentioned in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum are hereby denoted as follows: Sri Anantharamegowda shall be referred to as the Complainant. The Secretary of P.C.A. and R.D. Bank and the Managing Director of Land Bank shall be referred to as the Opposite Parties (OPs Bank).

4. The facts in brief, as per the Complainant, are that he is a member of OP’s bank and applied for a loan in 1991. The OP Bank approved a loan of Rs.1,74,900/- with an agreed interest rate of 15% p.a. and 2% penal interest for defaults. He provided all necessary documents, including equitable mortgage as security. After utilizing the loan, he repaid the principal and interest by 31.03.2004, citing a waiver of loan by the State Govt. under the ‘Damdubat’ scheme. Despite this, OPs failed to return the original documents, claiming outstanding interest from him. Feeling aggrieved by this deficiency, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2011 before the District Forum, seeking the return of original documents, refund of Share Capital amounting to Rs.8,860/-, issuance of a loan clearance certificate, and any other appropriate relief.

5. In reply, the OP bank contended that the Complainant had not fully repaid the principal amount and disputed the accuracy of his claim of interest payments. According to the OP bank, the Complainant owed Rs.45,450 as of 30.08.2006. After deducting the share of Rs.8,860, his liability was reduced to Rs.36,555. The OP bank sought clarification from the Govt. regarding the ‘Damdubat Scheme’, and in response, the Govt directed the OP bank to recover the interest from the Complainant, as per letter No. CO 169 CCB 2008 (B-1) dated 01.04.2004. Neither the Complainant nor the Govt. had paid the interest owed. The OP bank alleged that the complaint was filed solely to harass them.

6. The District Forum in its Order dated 31.05.2011 accepted /allowed the complaint and directing the OPs to return the original documents within 2 months and to pay Rs.100/- in case of delay.

7. Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Petitioners / OPs filed an Appeal No. 2449/2011 and the State Commission vide Order dated 02.11.2016 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following findings—

“14. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the District Forum are inconsonance with “Damdubat Scheme” as well as the various Circulars referred to in the course of their order. Under these circumstances, the contentions that are raised regarding the fact that the loan was commercial one cannot be accepted at all. Moreover, the contentions regarding to the fact that they are not liable to return the original documents of the complainant cannot accepted. The Government Order dt. 15.03.2005 reveals the applicability of the order. It is made clear that if the farmers had paid interest more than the principal amount in respect of long term loan as on 31.03.2004, the present Scheme includes all such loans. The object of the loan is also to relieve the farmers from such loans Avith an intention to help the farmers financially. In the