Back
J. RAJENDRA, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Indranil A Partnership Firmand – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVM J Rajendra AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad (“the State Commission”) order dated 17.10.2018 in Appeal No.1606 of 2013 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/OP-2 against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat (“the District Forum”) order dated 30.07.2013 partly allowing the Complaint.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant partnership firm consisting of two partners, Complainant No.1 and Complainant No.2. The firm obtained a loan from State Bank of India SBI (OP-3), mortgaging property at Ward No.1, Nondh No.1/1898 Sheri, Nanpura, Surat), with SBI. Towards securing the loan against the insured property, at the expense of the Complainants the SBI obtained an insurance policy No.230300/11/03/11/00000925, valid from 28.12.2005 to 27.12.2006. however, under the policy it erroneously insured the partnership firm
Revision under Section 21(b) of Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on National Commission.
(1) Revision – It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,....
(1) Review – The power of National Commission to review under Section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order.(2) Error – It is evident....
National Commission – Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited.
(1) Jurisdiction – Under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the District Forum and State Commission unless there is a....
Revisional Jurisdiction of NC – Concurrent findings given by Forum & State Commission : No illegality or material irregularity: NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded b....
(1) Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – The NCDRC, under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act (pari materia to Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act), cannot act as a second court of appeal. It cannot int....
Claims for third-party property damage due to motor vehicle incidents must be adjudicated by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, not consumer forums.
National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like appellate Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
