1.      This revision petition has been filed by Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., petitioner against the order dated 27.7.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Misc. Appl. No.1041 of 2012 in First Appeal No.668 of 2012.

2.      Brief facts narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the complainant/respondent No.1 took two loans from ICICI Bank for purchase of vehicle and later on complainant approached the petitioner herein to take over these loans.  The petitioner took over the loans and paid a cheque of Rs.2,59,197/- to respondent No.2 whom the respondent No.1 has authorised to collect the amount.  Later on respondent No.2 did not give this money to respondent No.1 and complaint was filed by the complainant.  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, (in short ‘the District Forum’) directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.38,440/- vide its order dated 20.03.2012.

3.      Against the order dated 20.03.2012 of the District Forum an appeal No.668 of 2012 was preferred by the petitioner herein before the State Commission and the same was dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 27.07.2012.

4.   Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.1 and also perused the record.

6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the loan was taken over from ICICI Bank and the respondent No.1 had authorised respondent No.2, Rohit Kumar to accept the cheque from the petitioner.  Accordingly a cheque of Rs.2,59,197/- was paid to the respondent No.2 with whom the petitioner had an agreement.  The respondent No.2, Rohit Kumar, did not pay the amount to respondent No.1 and the liability has been fastened on the petitioner herein.  The learned counsel stated that it was the respondent No.2, Rohit Kumar, who was liable to pay to the complainant.  However, the responsibility has been fixed on the petitioner to pay the amount.  Thus, the orders of the fora below suffered from basic material irregularity and are liable to be set aside. 

7.      On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant sated that the respondent No.2, Rohit Kumar was already deleted by the District Forum vide its order dated 05.0.4.2011.  Even the National Commission vide its order dated 04.09.2014, observed the following:-

“Perusal of record reveals that Respondent No.2 stood deleted by District Forum but petitioner unnecessarily impleaded him as a party before State Commission and before this Commission.  In such circumstances, no adverse order is to be passed against Respondent no.2.”

8.      The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further stated that respondent No.2 was not a party in the matter.  In fact, the complainant has not received the payment. Both the fora below have given a concurrent finding against the petitioner herein.  Once, no claim is to be considered against the respondent No.2, the revision petition has more or less, become infructuous.

9.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsel and have examined the material on record.  The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain if the loan was taken over from ICICI Bank, why the amount was not paid to ICICI Bank rather than paying to another party, respondent No.2.  The learned counsel replied that the petitioner had an agreement with the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 had authorised the respondent No.2 to receive the payment.  However, no such record was filed before the State Commission to show that respondent No.2 was authorised to receive the payment.  In fact both the fora below have considered the respondent No.2 as an agent of petitioner herein.  The fact of the matter, as per the banking norms, if the loan is taken over from the previous institution, the new bank should pay to the earlier loaner institution.  If the petitioner has violated this basic norm, complainant cannot be held responsible for this lapse.  Moreover, both the fora below have given concurrent finding and no new issue has been raised in the revision petition, which was not raised before the fora below.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, have observed; 

“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 that 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 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 finding of two fora.”

10.    In Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, the following has been observed:

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them 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.”   

11.    From the above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that in cases of concurrent finding of facts by both the fora below, the scope under the revision petition is very limited and it is restricted only to jurisdictional aspects.  No jurisdictional aspect is involved in the present revision petition.  Also the facts cannot be reassessed at the stage of revision petition in case of concurrent finding of facts by both the fora below.

12.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 27.07.2012 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.3983 of 2012 having no merit is dismissed. No order as to cost for this revision petition.