Surat Singh Rathi Vs Shiv Kumar & Anr. (NCDRC Delhi)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the revision petition was filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which assails the order dated 26.10.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 04.07.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat in Consumer Complaint no. 295 of 2014.
The facts as per the petitioner was that the petitioner and one Advocate were engaged by the respondents for legal services in two Civil Suits instituted in 2011. Respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum for losses suffered by them due to deficiency in service as they had to engage a new counsel. Respondents also engaged the petitioner in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 2011 before the Additional District Judge, Sonepat on a pro bono On contest, the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered payment of Rs.1,00,000/- for rendering deficient services and causing mental agony and harassment. The State Forum dismissed the appeal on the basis of this Commission’s orders in D.K. Gandhi Vs. M. Mathias, (2007) 2 CPC 422 dated 06.08.2007, which was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 3052 of 2008.
The said order was impugned in the Present petition on the grounds that (i) the judgment in K. Gandhi (supra) is not applicable to the instant case and the same is also stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; (ii) the respondents are not ‘consumers’ under the Act as no proof of consideration for services has been evidenced; (iii) awarding compensation is without basis as there no evidence on record regarding the loss incurred by the respondents; (iv) a complaint of cheating is not maintainable under section 2(1)(d) of the Act; (v) orders of the fora below are perverse.
The National Commission observed that from the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidences led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse.
This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds 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 based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Reliance was placed upon the Judgment of T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, wherein it was held as under:
“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”
On basis of the above, it was observed that the foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before the Commission in this revision petition. It is also seen that the orders of these fora are based on evidence on record. In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
On basis of the above, the Petition was dismissed.
