Summary
A bank credited its customer’s cheque to a similarly named customer’s account. The consumer fora found the bank responsible, but the National Commission reversed them on a fresh report obtained from the bank itself. The Court held that this exceeded the Commission’s limited revisional jurisdiction and disregarded the reasoned findings below. It also rejected relegation to a civil suit on the mistaken premise that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could extend time for instituting it. The State Commission’s order was restored.
Issues
- Whether the National Commission could reverse reasoned consumer findings on a fresh report from the respondent bank.
- Whether detailed evidence justified relegation to a civil suit and Section 5 could extend the time to institute it.
Provisions considered
- Section 21(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The National Commission exceeded its limited revisional powers by obtaining and relying on the bank’s fresh report to displace reasoned findings. (¶ 8-10)
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Additional evidence even on appeal must satisfy statutory conditions; no such application had been made, and revision was distinct from appeal. (¶ 10)
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963The provision does not apply to institution of a civil suit; the National Commission’s contrary observation was erroneous. (¶ 12)
Held
- Revisional intervention is confined to jurisdiction not vested by law, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegality or material irregularity in exercising it. The Commission exceeded those bounds by soliciting the litigant bank’s report and relying on it to reverse the fora below. (¶ 8-9)
- The lower fora had thoroughly examined the documents. The bank officer’s speculative explanations did not answer their reasoning, and the bank should have exercised extra caution with similarly named account holders. (¶¶ 6, 9)
- Additional evidence at the appellate stage is controlled by law, including the due-diligence requirement where applicable. No application was filed here; independently, the difference between appellate and revisional powers made the Commission’s own call for the report unwarranted. (¶ 10)
- A need for detailed evidence does not itself exclude consumer jurisdiction: the question is whether the issues can be determined by summary inquiry. Section 5 does not extend limitation for instituting a civil suit. The National Commission’s order was set aside and the State Commission’s order restored. (¶ 11-12)
Result
Appeal allowed; National Commission’s order set aside and State Commission’s order restored.