1.           These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 01.10.2013 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Hydrabad (in short “the State Commission) in First Appeals Nos.183 to 186 of 2012, whereby the State Commission allowed the Appeals filed by the Appellants.

2.           Complainants were shareholder in Salute Water House Pvt. Ltd./Opposite Party No.6. Opposite Party No.1 is the Head Office of ICICI Bank Ltd. Opposite Parties Nos.2 & 3 are Branches of Opposite Party No.1. ICICI Trusteeship Services Ltd./Opposite Party No.4 is the associate of Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3. The Complainants pledged shares with Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3. Amrex Marketing Pvt. Ltd./Opposite Party No.5 is the transferee of the shares alleged to have been transferred by Opposite Party No.4.

3.           Case of the Complainants is that Opposite Party No.6 availed financial assistance from ICICI Bank Ltd./Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3. At the time of sanctioning of loan, the Bank obtained securities and guarantee for repayment of the loan amount. The Complainants pledged thier share certificates with the Bank. The Complainants also executed an undertaking to buy back the shares in case Opposite Party No.6 fails to discharge the debt. Opposite Party No.6 discharged the loan amount and the Bank returned all documents, except the share certificates of the Complainants. The Complainants sent email dated 31.01.2007 to the Bank requesting to release share certificates, but in vain. Later, the Complainants came to know that the Bank had wrongly transferred the shares to Opposite Party No.5 and Opposite Party No.5 failed to return the share certificates to the Complainants. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed two separate Consumer Complaints Nos.184/2010 and 185/2010 with the District Forum with the same prayer, which reads as follows:-

“A.        Direct the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 5 to return the shares of the complainant alongwith share transfer forms;

B.          Direct the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony;

C.          Award costs of the complaint;

D.          Grant such other reliefs, which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4.           The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing written statement. Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 3 filed joint written statement stating that the Complainants pledged the share certificates with the Bank against the security and guarantee for repayment of the loan obtained by Opposite Party No.6. After settlement of loan amount, the Bank returned all the documents, including the shares certificates, to Opposite Party No.6. There was, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

5.           Opposite Party No.4 filed separate written statement contending that the Complainants were not Consumers qua Opposite Party No.4 and the Complaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder of the Opposite Parties. On merits, it was stated that Opposite Party No.4 was appointed as Investment Manager to manage the funds in question. Opposite Party No.6 defaulted in repayment of the loan amount. In order to realize the loan amount, they sold the shares to Opposite Party No.5. Before sale of shares to Opposite Party No.5, they issued notice in Free Press Journal, Mumbai Edition and Economic Times on 16.09.2009 and 29.12.2009 respectively. Opposite Party No.4 followed the procedure for sale of shares and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

6.           Opposite Party No.5 did not file written statement.

7.           Opposite Party No.6 also filed separate written statement contending that the Complainants stood guarantors against the loan obtained by them and pledged the share certificates consisting 33,350 shares. Opposite Party No.6 could not repay the loan as per payment schedule but repaid the entire loan in one time settlement. After settlement of loan amount, the Bank returned the entire documents to Opposite Party No.6, except the share certificates of the Complainants.  

8.           The District Forum, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, allowed the Complaint and directed as follows: -

“In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 4 (jointly and severally) are hereby directed to return the 16,675 share certificates to the complainant failing which or in the alternative its value of Rs.16,67,500/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs sixty seven thousand and five hundred) only within interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of payment and do pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards costs.) Rest of the claims if any claimed by the complaint are rejected. Time for compliance one month. No relief is granted against the opposite parties 5 and 6, though they are necessary and proper parties.”

9.           Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3/ICICI Bank Ltd. filed First Appeals Nos.183/2012 and 184/2012. Similarly, ICICI Trusteeship Services Ltd./Opposite Party No.4 filed First Appeals Nos.185/2012 and 186/2012.

10.         The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 01.10.2013 allowed the Appeals and modified the order of the District Forum with following directions: -

“In the result, the appeals F.A. No.183 to A186 to 2012 are allowed modifying the order of the District Forum. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,50,625/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants in C.C. No.184 of 2010 and C.C.No.185 of 2010.”

11.         Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, Opposite Party No.4 filed Revision Petition No.4901-4902 of 2013 and Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 filed Revision Petition No.1020-1021 of 2014.

12.         Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in RP No. 1020-1021 of 2014/Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 submitted that both the Fora below failed to appreciate the undertaking given by the Complainants for sale of share certificates in case of default of repayment of loan. The Fora below also failed to appreciate that Opposite Party No.6 repaid the loan amount in one time settlement after adjusting the amount equal to the value of the shares in question.  It was also overlooked that the Bank had given repeated reminders to Opposite Party No.6 for repayment of loan. Both the Fora below failed to appreciate the contractual right of the Bank to sell/realise the shares in case of failure to pay the dues of the Bank.

13.         Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in RP No.4901-4902 of 2013/Opposite Party No.4 submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that there was no relationship of Consumer and Service provider between Opposite Party No.4/ICICI Trusteeship Services Ltd. and the Complainants. The State Commission also failed to appreciate that the Complainants had given undertaking that ICICI Bank had sole and unfettered right on the shares in question. The Bank had not committed any deficiency in service by selling the shares to Opposite Party No.4.

14.         Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.5 submitted that there was no relationship of Consumer and the service provider between the Complainants and Opposite Party No.5. The Complaint qua Opposite Party No.5 was not maintainable. Moreover, neither the District Forum nor the State Commission had passed any order against them. Opposite Party No.5 had been unnecessary arrayed as Respondent in the instant Revision Petitions.

15.         Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.6 submitted that they availed loan of Rs.110 lakhs from ICICI Bank. Complainants stood as guarantor for loan and pledged 33,350 shares certificates and also executed an undertaking in favour of the Bank to buy back the shares. It could not repay the loan as per payment schedule but repaid the loan amount, vide one time settlement dated 09.01.2007. After receiving the entire payment, the Bank returned the security documents but failed to return the share certificates of the Complainants, despite repeated requests, which was clear deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

16.         Learned Counsel for the Complainants submitted that the share certificates of the Complainants were kept with the Bank as security for repayment of loan. Opposite Party No.2 had discharged the loan amount owed to the Bank through one time settlement on 09.01.2007. This fact was not denied by either Parties. After repayment of loan, the Bank was duty bound to return the shares certificates to the Complainants, which they failed to do and committed deficiency in service. The Bank did not inform the Complainant that Opposite Party No.6 had defaulted in making payment of loan instalments and directly sold the shares which were kept as security. The Bank made a false statement before the District Forum that the share certificates were transferred on 11.02.2002, 09.06.2003 and 25.07.2003.

17.         The main issue relates to return of the share certificates of the Complainants pledged as security to the Bank against the loan taken by Opposite Party No.6. It was stated on behalf of the Bank that after settlement of loan amount, the Bank returned all the documents, including the shares certificates, to Opposite Party No.6. In this regard, District Forum observed that the Bank had filed a false affidavit stating that they had returned the share certificates. The District Forum observed as follows: -

“This opposite party submits that while releasing all the security documents that are obtained at the time of the loan transaction, the 2^nd opposite party by its letter dated 31.01.2007 addressed to opposite party No.6 which includes the original shares along with signed and registered share transfer form No.7-8 (item No.7). If that is true how the share certificates were transferred on 11.02.2002 and again on 09.06.2003 and again on 25.07.2003 (Ex.A-2). So the version and affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is nothing but blatant lie.”

          The State Commission also observed that Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 made a false statement before the District Forum that they transferred the share certificates on 11.02.2002, 09.06.2003 and 25.07.2003. After repayment of loan amount, the Bank was supposed to return the share certificates either to the Complainant or Opposite Party No.6, who took loan from the Bank. The Bank, however, instead of returning the share certificates to the Complainants sold them to Opposite Party No.6/ICICI Trusteeship Services Ltd., who in turn sold the said share certificates to Opposite Party No.5. Both the Fora below held that after discharge of loan by Opposite Party No.6, the act of ICICI Bank as well as ICICI Trusteeship Services Ltd. amounted to unfair trade practice. On finding of fact, both the Fora below held Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 and 4 guilty of deficiency in service. The State Commission, however, reduced the amount from Rs.16,67,500/- to Rs.12,50,625/- on the ground that at the time the Complainant pledged the shares, the value of the share was Rs.75/- and the District Forum wrongly considered the value at Rs.100/- without there being any valuation report.  

18.     Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269  has held as under: -

“13.       Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal  principle  that  was  ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

19.         Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23.        The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

20.         Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs and Ors. vs. N. Madhava Rao & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3408 decided on 05.04.2019) held as follows: -

“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 wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

21.     For the foregoing discussion, we see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both Revision Petitions are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.