IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Powers – 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

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (‘State Commission’) order dated 20.09.2019 in FA No.2218/ 2012. In this the Appeal by the Petitioner/Complainant was dismissed, affirming the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore (“District Forum”) Order dated 21.11.2012 in CC No. 567 of 2011.

2. As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 46 days in filing the present Revision Petition. As the delay occurred during the suspending period of limitation due to Covid-19, the present Revision Petition is treated to have been filed within limitation.

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

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he applied six times since 1991 for a site under the “State Government Employees” quota. His name should have been at No. 25 in the seniority list but was unfairly moved to the general category and junior applicants were allotted sites out of turn in the Vasanthanagar layout, violating seniority. The shift to the general category was done arbitrarily and against the rules. This mismanagement amounted to restrictive trade practices, and caused him mental agony, financial loss due to rising construction costs. Despite a legal notice and obtaining proof through the RTI Act, no corrective action was taken. Being aggrieved the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

5. In their written version before the District Forum, OP-1 contended that the shift from the “State Government Employees” category to the “General” category was based on a decision taken by a sub-committee on 13.06.2005, per Rule 14 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991, as the complainant retired on 31.07.2005. After being shifted to the general category, he lacked seniority and was not eligible for allotment in the Vasanthanagar layout. His challenge of 2005 decision was delayed by over five years, making the complaint barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Act, 1986. Since the complainant was not allotted any site, he cannot be deemed a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. OP-1 contended that allotment was strictly based on seniority within the relevant category, but the complainant disputed this based on RTI findings. The shift to general category was justified by a policy decision in 2005. However, he challenged its fairness and transparency. His challenge of 2005 decision, and no justification for the delay potentially barred the claim. The complainant has not been allotted any site, and under the cited precedent, he may not qualify as a consumer.

6. The learned District Forum vide order dated 21.11.2012, dismissed the complaint with the following observations:—

“9) From the aforesaid contentions of both the parties clearly disclose that admittedly the name of the complainant has been shifted to the list of general category from the list of State Government employees category. But the material on record clearly discloses that the same is done by the opponents as per the decision of the sub- committee meeting held on 13.06.2005 and not without any valid reason as alleged by the complainant. The contents of the decision taken by the sub-committee produced by the opponent-No.1-clearly discloses that the said committee has taken such a decision in the meeting held on 13.06.2005 and therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the opponents or his officials in the matter of shifting the name of the complainant to the list of general category from the State Government employees category. Apart from the same, though the said committee has taken such a decision in the year 2005, the complainant has not challenged-the same for a period of more than five years and this complaint is filed by him after the lapse of more than fiv