Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1152
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
ROYAL ELECTRO COMPUTERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
PRAMOD KAPADAN – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 4836 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. SHISHIR SINGH
For the Respondents: NEMO
The National Commission cannot reassess evidence in revisional jurisdiction unless a jurisdictional error is clearly demonstrated in the lower fora's findings.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 - Revisional jurisdiction - Appeal against order of State Commission - Petitioner failed to show the expert's report was improperly included, nor demonstrated any error in the concurrent findings on the evidence presented. (Paras 5, 7, 8)
(B) Jurisdictional error - National Commission's role in reviewing lower fora's findings only pertains to errors seen in records, any contrary interpretation based on already established facts is impermissible. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner supplied computer equipment and was found to have provided pirated software and missing drivers upon complaint from the respondent. The District Forum awarded damages, upheld by the State Commission; petitioner sought revision claiming lack of fair opportunity and disputing the expert's report.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not dispute the factual basis of flaws and re-argued points already adjudicated, asserting no new evidence or argument. The lower fora exercised jurisdiction correctly, leading to no basis for reversal.
Issues: Whether concurrent findings of fact by the District Forum and State Commission were erroneous, and if the expert's report was improperly admitted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction does not allow for reassessment of evidence, stressing the need for clear jurisdictional errors to warrant intervention; concurrent findings must be honored unless proved otherwise. (Paras 5, 7)
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional challenge to findings (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. authority of national commission's jurisdiction (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. respect for concurrent findings (Para 7 , 8) |
PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA
ORDER
1. This revision petition filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 12/990 dated 25.07.2013 arising out of order dated 31.08.2012 in complaint no. 34 of 2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune (in short, ‘District Forum’).
2. The petitioner’s case is that on 09.07.2007 he had supplied a Compaq Presario computer, an HP LCD monitor and UPS at a cost of Rs.29,580/- to the respondent. Subsequently, the monitor was changed at the respondent’s request to a Compaq TFT LCD monitor for which the difference in price of Rs 1500/- was paid. The respondent had complained that the computer was defective and that based on the report/expert opinion of one Rohit Jhunjhunwala it was found that the computer had been supplied with pirated software and without various drivers in the form of CDs. Based on this report, the District Forum concluded that there was deficiency in service and ordered the petitioner to refund Rs.29,850/- with interest at 9% from 08.02.2008 with cost of Rs.1000/- within 6 weeks. The petitioner’s appeal before the State Commission was dismissed on the ground that the computer supplied was defective as per the technical expert with costs of Rs.10,000/- . The petitioner is before us challenging the report of the expert and contending that it was taken on record without opportunity to him to oppose it and therefore the findings of the lower fora are erroneous. He also contends that the technical report filed was not by any government laboratory and that the expert was not an ‘expert’ as required under the Act. He has therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent remained unrepresented despite notice including by dasti and final opportunity being provided to be present and was therefore placed ex parte. The records have been perused carefully.
4. The petitioner has not disputed that the software was pirated or that the drivers were not supplied. It is his contention that the report of the expert should not have been taken on record. The order of the District Forum is clear in mentioning that the parties were given the opportunity to lead their evidences and to present their case by way of arguments. The petitioner’s appeal before the State Commission was disallowed after due opportunity to both parties and also on the basis of the technical report of the expert. Thus the petitioner had contested the claim of the respondent on this ground at both the lower fora. His raising the issue before us is therefore an attempt to re-agitate the issue on the same grounds.
5. While this Commission has revisional jurisdiction, in exercise of this jurisdiction, it is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its own conclusion on facts especially when the findings on the facts of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. This Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the foras below only on the ground that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or if they are based on conjecture or surmises. In other words, evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, has held that:
“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under
