Where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted

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.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.