The jurisdiction of the National Commission under S.21(b) is limited and cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact without a jurisdictional error.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant challenging the order of the State Commission dated 6.2.2020 in Appeal No. 835 of 2018 whereby the order of the District Forum, dismissing his complaint, was confirmed and a cost of Rs.10,000 was imposed upon him.

2. It is argued that he is a complainant and fighting for his just right and imposition of cost was unjustified. It is submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.

3. It is argued by the respondent that the present revision petition has no merit. Findings of the Fora below are based on the evidences on record and this commission cannot re - appreciate and re - assess the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and substitute its own opinion where there are concurrent findings of the Fora below on the facts.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.

5. The petitioner has filed the complaint alleging that the respondents had wrongly deducted the amount of Rs.834 and Rs.3,336 from his salary during his employment with respondent No. 2 in the month of May and June 1996 and in the month of July 1999 to February 2000. It is submitted that as soon as it came to the notice of the respondents that they had refunded the amount of Rs.834 and Rs.3,336 alongwith interest and a total amount of Rs.14,549 was transferred on 27.2.2017 in CPF account 8505 through cheque No. 771244, he filed the complaint due to deficiency in service.

6. It is argued by the respondent that the complaint was false and has been rightly dismissed by the Fora below.

7. I have heard the arguments of the parties and have perused the record.

8. The complaint was filed on the premise that while crediting the sum of Rs.14,549 towards wrong deduction of Rs.834 and Rs.3,336, an amount of Rs.619 was short and the respondents ought to have deposited additional amount of Rs.619 towards interest. Complaint therefore was filed for the recovery of the said amount alongwith other benefits.

9. The parties led their evidences before the Fora below. The District Forum after perusing the evidences on record and hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission and his appeal was also dismissed alongwith cost.

10. It is a settled preposition of law that this Commission has a limited jurisdiction under S.21(b) of the Fora below. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters mentioned below that this Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Fora below only when there is a perversity in the impugned order or when the order is without jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting power of revision of this Commission under S.21(b) of old Act has in numerous cases including Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) : IV (2011) SLT 303 : 2011 (11) SCC 269 , has held as under:
"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from S.21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the Na