Jurisdictional errors must be evident for a revisional authority to overturn concurrent findings; such errors were not found in this case.

1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandrapur, Maharashtra (for short, the District Forum) and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench (for short, the State Commission), the Opposite Party M/s Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Ltd. has filed the present Revision Petition under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The Complaint filed by the Complainant / Respondent was partly allowed, thereby, directing the Petitioner Chits Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,60,000 alongwith interest thereon @ 9% p.a.p.c. from April, 2009 alongwith Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 for expenses towards cost of the proceedings.

2. Aggrieved by this Order dated 27.10.2010 of the District Forum, the Opposite Party " Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Ltd. filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 13.12.2016, confirmed the Order of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal.

3. The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders are adequately dealt with by the District Forum and the State Commission and, therefore, I do not deem it necessary to repeat the same.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for both parties at length and considered their submissions. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Complainant / Respondent, who is the wife of late Sh. Sadhan Choudhary, who was the subscriber of the two Chits of the Petitioner Company, had paid only nine instalments in Chit No. 7/11 and eleven instalments in Chit No. 7/12. Due to non - payment of further instalments, a notice for removal from membership under S.28 of the Central Chit Fund Act, 1982 was issued on 8.10.2008 in Chit No. 7/11 and 8.5.2010 in Chit No. 7/12, wherein refund of Rs. 41,050 and Rs. 59,450 respectively were informed to the subscriber. He further submitted that it was made very clear in the passbook issued to the subscriber that the installment amount shall be paid only in the office of the Chits Fund Company and that despite expressed condition given in the passbook, the subscriber made payment to an agent, which was not paid in the account and is a matter of dispute. He cited certain case laws in which, it has been observed that complicated cases of law and disputed facts should only be decided in a Civil Court and not in a Consumer Commission.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant submitted that there is no dispute to the fact that the instalments have been paid to the agent of the Petitioner Company and were received by the agent Mr. Anand Raipure and this fact has also been clearly mentioned in the Passbook of the subscriber and in the First Information Report filed in Police Station Chandrapur City in 2009 (229/2009) dated 11.11.2009.

6. This fact of having made payment to the agent was also stated in the legal notice issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner. He further submitted that there are a number of case laws, wherein it has been held that jurisdiction of the National Commission is very limited when there are concurrent findings and should be exercised only when there has been a jurisdictional error leading to miscarriage of justice.

7. The two case laws in support cited by him are ˜Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC):IV (2011) SLT 303: (2011) 11 SCC 269 , decided on 18.3.2011 and the other case law cited was that New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kiran Singh & Ors., (2004) III SLT 571:II (2004) ACC 376 (SC):decided on 28.4.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 5463/1998.

8. I have gone through the submissions and after careful con