IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent decisions of District Forum & State Commission cannot be set aside by this National Commission as it cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in FA No.2340 of 1997, vide which, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed, and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was upheld.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Directors and officers of the Opposite Party were acquainted with the Complainant’s late father, Major Dara Singh, and maintained a close relationship with him. The Director of the Opposite Party visited Kanpur and persuaded the Complainant and his father to deposit money with their Company as a form of security. The Opposite Party assured them that the funds collected from the general public would be used to pay interest to depositors. For those who did not opt for regular payments, the accrued interest would be added to the principal amount, providing greater benefits to the depositor over time. Based on these assurances from the Director of the Opposite Party, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 15.05.1971. The Complainant made this deposit on the understanding that he could withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest whenever he desired. When the Complainant needed funds in 1981, the Opposite Party paid Rs.10,000/- as interest. However, the Opposite Party had since failed to pay the remaining amount to the Complainant, thereby breaching its promise. This failure to pay constituted a deficiency in service, thus falling under the purview of a consumer dispute. The Complainant claimed that he was entitled to recover Rs.4,73,074.74 from the Opposite Party. Further, the Opposite Party, in a letter dated 01.12.1993, stated that they do not have the relevant documents. While the Opposite Party had not explicitly refused to pay the outstanding amount, the Complainant had been subjected to continuous harassment, with no clear explanation provided for the delay in payment. During a follow-up on 10.10.1995, the Opposite Party offered inadequate excuses and promised to resolve the matter within a month, yet no payment was made by it. Aggrieved with the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Kanpur Nagar.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 30.04.1997 partially allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner/Opposite Party to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant with interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual payment after deduction of Rs.10,000/-, along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation. The Petitioner then filed its Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which was dismissed vide the impugned Order, and the Order of the District Forum was affirmed. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -

“The appellant contends that in the riots that took place after the death of Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1984, the entire company got burnt and along with that the necessary records were also destroyed. In this regard, the opposite party has not submitted a copy of any FIR so that it can be clarified that when the arson took place in his company and which records or articles were destroyed in the arson. The appellant has not produced all these. Hence, in such circumstances the concept will go against the appellant. The learned District Forum has written that even after serving a satisfactory notice from the Registry, the opposite party company or its representative did not appear. This clearly shows that the notice on the opposite party was served satisfactorily. The relation between the appellant and the respondent was good and the appellant has also accepted this fact. Now the question arises whether the appellant is entitled to the relief sought or whether the judgment in question is liable to be set aside?

Since the amount and interest have not been finally paid to the respondent/complainant, the cause