The short facts giving rise to the present appeal is the issue of deposit of cash or cheque meant to be deposited in his account in an account number belonging to another person with similar name at the instance of bank that the customer bank account number has changed.
The respondent-bank being aggrieved by the order passed against it by Fora below had preferred the Revision Petition before the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act.The National Commission allowed the said revision application.
It is pertinent to note that pending the revision application, the National Commission had called for a report on the whole matter from the SBI. Accordingly, a report was filed by the Regional Manager of the SBI. Relying upon the said report, the National Commission allowed the revision application filed by the bank, by observing inter-alia that though revisional jurisdiction of the Commission under section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 has a defined purview and ambit, it does allow interference if grave misappreciation of evidence or superficial appraisal of a case is discernible on the part of the two fora below.
How the report requested to be filed can be an additional document at revisional stage: The apex court heard the matter and observed that is at a loss to understand as to how the National Commission could have sought for a report at the revisional stage, that too from an officer of the party which already had an opportunity to submit all the documents necessary for the purpose of defending itself before the Consumer Forum, and as to how such a report in the form of an additional evidence produced at the revisional stage could be relied upon, in respect of which the two fora below had no opportunity to deal with.
Extra caution to be have been exercised with the bank: The bank should have been extra cautious given the fact that accounts of the appellant, Sunil Kumar Maity, and the second respondent, Sunil Maity, were with the same bank branch.
Non-perusal of the detailed hearing by Fora below: What is rather surprising is that the National Commission for setting aside the findings and conclusion recorded by the District and State Forum, simply reproduced the report by one of the officers of the party in litigation with the appellant. The National Commission has not adverted and delved into the sound reasoning given by the State Commission.
Parameters for exercising revisional jurisdiction: The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required.
No way that the appellant would have known that the second respondent, had an account in the same branch: In the opinion of the Court, both the State Commission as well as the Consumer Forum had elaborately appreciated the documents on record and passed the reasoned orders. The report that tries to absolve the respondent-bank of its liability is based on surmises and conjectures as it abstrusely and without evidence holds that the bank has every reason to believe that wrong account number was intentionally inserted by the appellant himself for reasons best known to the appellant or on account of negligence by the appellant by not keeping the passbook in his safe and proper custody. The suppositions are contradictory as well as incredulous and fanciful. The appellant did not know the second respondent and would not have known his account number unless given to him by a bank officer. There was no way that the appellant would have known that the second respondent, namely Sunil Maity had an account in the same branch. No sane person would deposit cash or cheque meant to be deposited in his account in an account number belonging to another person with similar name.
Exercise of revisional jurisdiction
Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law that is as contemplated in order-41 Rule 27 of CPC. The party has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
Appellate vs. Revisional Jurisdiction: Apart from the fact that there is a vast difference between the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and the revisional jurisdiction, no such application was filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission.
Detailed evidence: Further, it is also well settled legal position that requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry.
The National Commission therefore has grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement of Ld. Counsel for the SBI that it will not press the issue of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court, the relief was granted in terms above by apex court.
Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Ors. [Civil Appeal 432 of 2022] Supreme Court
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA Judge, Supreme Court of India
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Judge, Supreme Court of India
