REKHA GUPTA

By this common order we propose to dispose of the above noted revision petitions involving similar question of law and facts.

2.       Brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant in RP Nno.4723 of 2012 are that on 19.6.2007, respondent no.1/opposite party no.1 through their authorized officer published a Sale Notice for the sale of six residential properties situated at Derabassi at certain reserve prices.

3.       On 15.3.2008, the petitioner alongwith respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 made a proposal showing their joint interest in purchasing the properties advertised by the respondent no.1.  Total detail of all six properties is as under:

4.       Upon receipt of proposal letter from the petitioner and respondent no.2 for  purchase of above mentioned properties, the respondent no.1 being the Branch Manager/Authorized Officer had issued a letter dated 18.3.2008 to the petitioner and respondent no.2 stating therein to furnish some documents so that the deal could be finalized.  After making proposal dated 15.3.2008, respondent no.2 had changed her mind and lost interest in purchasing the above said properties from respondent no.1 and had accordingly refused to furnish any document and in that way, she quit/backed out from the proposal dated 15.3.2008. Accordingly, same was communicated to the respondent no.1.

5.       Thereafter, petitioner alone showed his interest in purchasing the above said properties from the respondent no.1.  Accordingly, respondent no.1 being the Authorized Officer/Branch Manager of LICHFL had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner on 15.4.2008 for sale of above mentioned properties.  It was pertinent to mention here that the original stamped and signed agreement to sell was kept with the respondent no.1 in the record file of LICHFL.  It was agreed that petitioner would pay the entire stipulated consideration amount to LICHFL and thereafter, obtained a No Dues Certificate from the respondent no.1.

6.       As per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 15.4.2008, petitioner paid the entire consideration amount to respondent no.1.  Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued the No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioner on 31.3.2009.

7.       The petitioner had already paid the entire amount to respondent no.1 as per the terms and conditions of agreement for the above said properties and as per clause – 4 of the agreement to sell respondent no.1 was to issue the Sale Certificate as and when whole consideration amount was received by them.  However, respondent no.1 failed to comply with the said provisions of agreement and has not issued the Sale Certificate even after 20 months.

8.       On 7.2.2011, petitioner had executed an agreement to sell with respondent no.3/opposite party no.3 for the sale of above said properties.  He made a representation on 14.3.2011 requesting the respondent no.1 for issuance of sale certificate in his favour. Since, the prices of land had since increased manifield, the intention of respondents had turned to cheat the petitioner to make illegal gains.  The petitioner had requested respondent no.1 for execution and registration of sale certificate in favour of petitioner but the respondent no.1 was delaying the same without any specific reasons.  Ultimately, the petitioner got issued legal notice to respondent no.1, who was at that time the Branch Manager of Chandigarh Branch Office and called him to issue sale certificate in favour of petitioner.  Respondent no.1 was illegally trying to generate the interest of respondent no.2 in the properties purchased by petitioner from LICHFL.

9.       Despite the fact that respondent no.1 had entered into an agreement to sell with petitioner only for the sale of above said properties, the respondent is now illegally including the name of respondent no.2 alongwith petitioner with intention to defraud with the petitioner. The petitioner had paid the entire consideration amount to LICHFL and agreement to sell dated 15.4.2008 had been executed with him only but now at the time of issuance of sale certificate, respondent no.1, who is the authorized officer of LICHFL, is not ready to issue sale certificate in respect of the properties purchased by the petitioner, rather was illegally trying to include the name of respondent no.2 in the sale certificate of above said properties.  As the petitioner had already executed the agreement to sell in favour of respondent no.3 and last date for execution of sale deed was 30.4.2011, however, petitioner cannot execute the sale deed in favour of respondent no.3 till opposite party no.1 did not issue the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and register the same.

It is was prayed that complaint may kindly be accepted and respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to issue the sale certificates and register the same in the office of Sub-Registrar, Derabassi well before 30.4.2011 and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental harassment.

10.       Respondent no.1/OP No.1 in her written statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (short, ‘District Forum’)   have stated that ;

            “That the present complaint is not maintainable before the present forum as the complaint had manipulate the original documents as the OP No.1 had already issued the full and final payment certificate dated 18.4.2009 in the joint name of complainant and OP No.2, whereas another certificate which the complainant attached with his complaint as Annexure-A-4 is totally manipulated as the same certificate annexed as Annexure A-4 was never on the office records of the OP No.1 and to prove originality of the certificate required the question of the evidence, which needs to be proved only under the Law of Evidence, hence the present forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and liable to be dismissed only on this ground.

            That the complainant who was working as DSA with the OP No.1 has not been performing his functions well as due to many complaints, his Agency was terminated on 19.2.2010 and further to usurp the share of his partner Mrs.Jasbir Kaur who alongwith him entered into transaction to purchase the properties mortgaged with the company concocted evil designs so as to kill two birds with one stone.  It is further interest to point out that the complainant has also filed a complaint before Economic Offence Wings, Deptt. Of Police, UT, Chandigarh and the same is lying pending.

            That the complainant has not come to the Court with the clean hands and does not produce the true facts before this Hon’ble Forum as the OP No.2 never back out from the said proposal as nothing has been given in the written by the OP No.2 to OP No.1, it is interested to point out that till date OP No.2 wrote a various letter to OP No.1 showing her interest to get the sale deed registered in her name. 

        The said agreement to sell annexed as Annexure A-3 of the complainant is also fabricated by the complainant itself. It is interested to point out that the agreement to sell is to be prescribed on the requisite stamp paper, but the fabricated agreement to sell annexed as Annexure A-3 is on the plain paper, which has no validity in the eyes of law and the said complaint is liable to be dismissed only on this ground and the complainant has also manipulate the other original documents lying in the original file of OP No.1.

       As per the contention of the complainant as mentioned in para 4 of the complaint that the OP No.2 had changed her mind and lose her interest in purchasing the property in question from OP No.1 and has refused to furnish any documents and in that way she quit/backed out proposal dated 15.3.2008 is totally wrong and denied as nothing has been communicated to OP No.1 either in writing or verbally and even the complaint has not placed  any documents on the records showing the losing of interest of OP No.2. It is interested to point out that the OP No.2 along with the complaint filed an affidavit with OP No.1 dated 31.3.2008 showing the interest to purchase the property.

        The opposite party No.1 through its area manager has also filed an application in the Police Station for lodging an FIR against the complainant for cheating the OP No.1.”

11.       Respondent no.2/OP No.2 in their written statement before the District Forum has also stated that ;

            “There is no question of backing out from the deal by OP No.2 for the simple reason that the deal by OP No.2 for the simple reason that the OP No.2 has paid a sum of Rs.8 lakhs through Bank Draft dated 29.4.2008 in favour of OP No.1 out of the total sale consideration amount of Rs.12,55,000/- and the complainant has paid only Rs.4,55,000/-.  Moreover, joint affidavit of the complainant and OP No.2 dated 31.3.2008 clearly proves that OP No.2 never backed out from the deal and is a interested party.

No proof has been attached with the complaint to show that complainant himself has paid total sale consideration of amount to OP No.1 Agreement to sell dated 15.4.2008 is a forged and fabricated document.   This fact itself proves from the document attached with the complaint which clearly indicates that there are no signatures of OP No.1 at the first page even on the receipt.  Signatures of the witnesses have been forged and there are no signatures of witnesses at page 2.  Even the earnest money has been shown as paid Rs.1,02,565/-. Interestingly, in para no.2 of the alleged agreement it has been mentioned that said earnest money has been paid by first party i.e. OP No.1 in cash to the second party i.e. complainant.  Otherwise original agreement to sell is always to be kept by the purchaser and not by the seller.

            That para no.6 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied.  Said document dated 15.4.2008 is forged and fabricated document.  As already mentioned above no proof has been attached with the complaint showing that entire sale consideration amount has been paid by the complainant.  However, Rs.8 lacs has been paid by the OP  No.2 in favour of OP No.1 through bank draft dated 29.4.2008. Even alleged No Due Certificate dated 31.3.2009 is also a forged and fabricated document.

        That in reply to para no.8, it is submitted that complainant has played a fraud not only with OP No.2 as well as with OP No.3 by executing the document on 7.2.2011 showing complainant himself as the sole owner of the property in question.  Whereas OP No.2 is also one of the co-owner in the property in question to the extent of almost 2/3^rd share as she had paid Rs.8 lacs out of the total sale consideration amount.

        In reply to para No.15, it is submitted that complainant has no right, title whatsoever to sell the property to opposite party no.3 without the knowledge and written consent of OP No.2, who is the owner to the extent of 2/3^rd share in the property in question.  Even on 21.3.2011 at about 9.45 p.m., complainant contacted husband of OP No.2 from mobile No.9855450872 on the mobile phone No.9814008597 and threatened and even used filthy language and accordingly complaint was lodged and DDR was recorded and the matter is under investigation.

12.     District Forum vide order dated 2.2.2012 while allowing the complaint observed that :-

17]         In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that once OP No.1-LIC Housing Finance Limited had issued No Due Certificate (Ann.A-4) that nothing is due, then they were legally bound to execute/issue Sale Certificate in favour of the complainant in respect of the properties as mentioned in Ann.A-4. By not doing so, they certainly remained deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant and also indulged into unfair trade practice. Therefore, the present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP No.1- LIC Housing Finance Limited is directed to issue the Sale Certificates in favour of the complainant alone in respect of the properties as mentioned in Ann.A-4 and to further register the same in the office of Sub-Registrar, Derabassi. OP No.1 (LICHFL) is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony & physical harassment, apart from Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

18]         This order be complied with by OP-1 (LICHL), within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 28.3.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

13.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed i.e. FA No.73 of 2012 was filed by respondent no.1 and FA No.75 of 2012 was filed by respondent no.2 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, “State Commission”).  The State Commission in its common impugned order observed that :-

“18.          In the appeal bearing No.73 of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 assailed the order of the District Forum and submitted that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because he purchased the aforesaid six properties, under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second Ordinance, 2002 (Ord.3 of 2002), as is evident from the joint affidavit dated 31.03.2008 (Exhibit OP-1/4), furnished by the complainant and Opposite Party No.2. Moreover, this fact has never been rebutted by the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant. Thus, it is established that the complainant along with Opposite Party No.2 purchased the property, in question on “As is where is basis”. Therefore, there was no hiring and availing of services of the seller/lessor. Since, the properties purchased by them, are “immovable properties” as defined in Section 3(26) of General Clauses Act, 1897, and cannot be considered as “goods” as defined in Section 2(7) of The Sales of Goods Act, 1930, the sale price or lease premium paid by them, is a consideration for the sale or lease, and not a consideration for any alleged services, or for provision of any amenity. Hence, it is established that the complainant is not a consumer. The principle of law settled in the case of Chandigarh Administration & Another Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Others, Civil Appeal No.1995 of 2006, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.03.2009 was that where any person purchases the property on “As is where is basis”, then, he is not a consumer. The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of P. Shri Nivasa Verma Vs. State Bank of India., 2012 (1) CPC, 233 (NC).

19.            Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, further submitted that the complainant purchased all the six properties, along with Opposite Party No.2, for earning profits, and, he indulged into commercial activity, as it is nowhere mentioned, in the complaint, that he purchased the said properties for earning his livelihood. In support of his contentions, the Counsel placed reliance on the case of “Jag Mohan Chhabra And Anr. vs DLF Universal Ltd.” reported as IV (2007 ) CPJ 199 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Dehli, held in Para No.2, interalia, as under: -

2. We have heard Mr. K.P.S. Rao for the complainants on admission. Evidently, ground, first and second floors in Town Houses and apartment No. 308B in Hamilton Court were purchased by the complainants for earning profits and transaction is thus relatable to commercial purpose and complainants not being the "consumers" within the meaning of Section 2(l)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint itself is not maintainable under the Act. Moreover, for adjudicating the claim made, voluminous evidence will be needed and the complaint, therefore, cannot be decided in summary procedure under the Act. Hence, the complaint is disposed of with liberty reserved to the complainants to approach the Civil Court to seek the recover for the amount claimed from the opposite party.”

20.            He further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P filed against the order of Hon’ble National Commission, and upheld the view, taken by the Hon’ble National Commission. He further cited the case of “SMV Agencies Private Limited Vs. Kanta Rani” reported as 2009(2) CLT 111, of this very Commission, wherein also, seven flats were booked by the complainant, and her family but he failed to indicate any acceptable or logical reason to confirm that these flats were actually needed by the family for the living of its members and not for sale. The next case cited by the Counsel is Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HUDA & Ors, reported as 2008 (2) CLT 377, wherein the complainant purchased five dwelling units and the transaction was relatable to service for commercial purpose. This Commission held that since the transaction was relatable to service for commercial purpose, which is excluded from the purview of the definition as given by Section 2(1)(d) (ii) w.e.f. 15.03.2003, the complainant was not the consumer and the complaint itself was not maintainable under the Act.

21.            From the perusal of sale certificates (Exhibit OP-1/6 to OP-1/11), it is evident that the complainant along with Opposite Party No.2, purchased six properties, in question, under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second Ordinance, 2002 (Ord.3 of 2002). In the complaint, the complainant, nowhere, mentioned that he purchased these properties, for earning his livelihood, and, not for carrying on any commercial activity. Even the complainant has already entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the properties in dispute, in favour of the Opposite Party No.3. Thus, the complainant, bought the properties, in question, for commercial purpose i.e. for sale to earn profits. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer. Our view is fully supported by the law laid down, on this point, in the cases, discussed above.

22.            The next issue raised by the Counsel for the appellant/OP No.1 is that the complainant committed fraud and the document Annexures A-3 i.e. agreement to sell, placed on record of the District Forum, is forged and fabricated and has no validity in the eyes of law, as the same was not executed on a valid stamp paper. He further submitted that the first page of this agreement does not bear the signatures of the seller and it only bears the signature of the purchaser, whereas the second page, bears the signatures of both the seller as well as the purchaser. He further submitted that nobody attested this agreement, as the space for incorporating the names of the witnesses, under the heading “Witnesses”, is blank. He further submitted that even the full and final payment certificate dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure C-4), placed on record, was never issued in the name of the complainant by Opposite Party No.1, as the original of the same is not on the record. It is important to mention here that the receipt has been printed on the reverse of the first page of the agreement to sell (Annexure A3), the genuineness of which is doubtful. Therefore, this receipt cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that the complainant was DSA with it, and was not performing his functions well and due to numerous complaints, his agency was terminated on 19.02.2010 (Annexure OP-1/2). He further submitted that after receiving a Bank Draft No.708406 dated 29.04.2008 for an amount of Rs.8 Lacs , from Opposite Party No.2, out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,55,000/- and also after receiving a sum of Rs.4,55000/- from the complainant, Sale Certificates (Exhibit OP-1/6 to OP-1/11) were duly prepared in the joint names of the complainant as well as Opposite Party No.2, and were kept ready, but they never came together to receive the same.

23.            In the cross appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, the Counsel for the appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the complainant had played fraud with Opposite Party No.2, with the motive to grab the property, in question. He further submitted that the complainant cheated her intentionally, by concealing the true facts as well as by forging Annexures A-3 and A-4 and by further entering into an Agreement to sell dated 07.02.2011, fully knowing well that he was not alone the owner of property in question. However, the complainant in his rejoinder, has not rebutted the allegations of Opposite Party No.2. He further submitted that regarding this fraud, a complaint was duly lodged and a DDR was recorded against the complainant, which is annexed at running Page 124 of the complaint file. He further submitted that the complainant has not approached the Consumer Fora, with clean hands and therefore, he cannot derive any benefit out of his own wrongs.

25.            Since serious allegations of fraud, cheating and fabrication of material documents have been leveled by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 against the complainant, which require examination, cross examination and re-examination of the witnesses, in detail, as also the production of voluminous documentary evidence, and, as such, the Consumer Foras, cannot decide such complicated and disputed issues, in summary proceedings. Such complicated and disputed issues, can only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

26.            The next issue raised by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is that Annexure A-3 is only an agreement to sell and the remedy available to the complainant, is to file a suit for specific performance, of the same. Since, for the purchase of properties, on ‘as is where is basis’, the complainant did not hire the services of Opposite Party No.1, for provision of any facility or amenity, in case there was any breach of contract i.e. agreement to sell (Annexure A3), by Opposite Party No.1, then the only remedy with the complainant was to file a suit for specific performance, in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The consumer Complaint, was, thus, not maintainable.”

The State Commission then gave the following order :-

“29.          In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the District Forum being illegal and perverse, needs interference of this Commission. Therefore, both the appeals filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, are liable to be accepted and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

30.            For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing No.73 of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 i.e. LIC Housing Finance Limited, and No.75 of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Mrs. Jasbir Kaur, are accepted, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order dated 02.02.2012, passed by the District Forum, is set aside.

31.            Respondent No.1/complainant shall, however, be at liberty to resort to any other remedy available to him, under the provisions of law”.

14.     Hence, the revision petition.

15.     In the revision petition, the petitioner merely at great length repeated the facts of the case as mentioned in his complaint. The basic grounds for the revision petition are that :

• It is also under different facts of circumstances that the mentioned “As is where is basis” clause under para – 18 of the impugned order, is also nowhere mentioned or even contracted in the statutory sale agreement by OP-1 as per ‘private treaty sale’ of SARFAESI Act and further not even published in the newspaper advertisement’ for ‘sale notices’ under the said Act. Undisputedly, the property in question was sold by OP-1 under ‘private treaty’ of SARFAESI Act, whose rule 8 (8) too specifically stipulates the selling institution/OP-1 to execute such sale through mutual agreement only, wherein all terms of sale would be mutually settled in writing, with the purchaser/revisionist.
• Moreover, as per clause – 4 of the said agreement, OP-1 was specifically and contractually bound to execute and register sale letter/certificate in favour of purchaser/revisionist, upon receipt of the full payment consideration, and said full receipt duly stands acknowledged by OP-1 vide the NDC executed in favour of revisionist.  Hence, failure to issue and register said sale certificate, despite the explicit binding on OP-1 to do so, remains the moot cause of deficiency on OP-1 to do so, remains the moot cause of deficiency on art of OP-1, thereby leading to the consumer complaint by revisionist.  It is well settled under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, as also laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Smt. Ramala Roy vs. Rabindra  Nath Sen 1994 (I)  CPR 66” that if somebody does not perform his part of the contract, it amounts deficiency in service.
• Even Op-1 also duly admits factum matrix of the sale agreement during trial evidence before the Ld. Forum, except rebutting to mere extent of the available copy of the revisionist being on plain paper instead of stamp paper, thereby falsely surmising the admittedly executed document as legally invalid, fully ignoring the provisions contemplated under section 62 of Stamp Act, allowing any unpaid stamp duty of an executed document be payable at any later stage without limitation of time, along with maximum fine/penalty provision of Rs.500/-.  Relevant extract of the stamp Act is reproduced as under :

[62} Penalty for executing etc. instrument not duly stamped –

Any person – (a) drawing, making, issuing, endorsing or transferring or singing otherwise than as a witness or presenting for acceptance or payment or accepting, paying or receiving payment of, or in any manner negotiating any bill of exchange (payable otherwise than on demand) or promissory note without the same being duly stamped or

(b) executing or signing otherwise than as a witness any other instrument chargeable with duty without the same being duly stamped ; or voting or attempting to vote under any proxy not duly stamped ;

Shall for every such offence be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

• However, the fact remains, as in conformity with established rules of law, that the said agreement was too executed in duplicate only, whose first copy on stamp paper had been retained by OP-1 for own records, and the second copy on plain paper handed over to the revisionist as also originally signed, stamped and witnessed.  Said recorded evidence before the Ld. District Forum by the revisionist under para 6 of preliminary objections of the rejoinder never stands rebutted by OP-1.  Relevant extract of said para 6 of rejoinder dated 20.6.2011 is produced as under :

(Para 6 of Preliminary Objections) : XXXXXX While the original stamped and signed agreement was retained by OP No.1, the copy of the same had also been communicated to OP No.1by the complainant on 24.3.2011.XXXXX

16.     We have heard the petitioner in person and the counsels for respondent nos.1 and 2 and carefully gone through the record.

17.     The petitioner at great length repeated all the facts as mentioned in his complaint.  He also draws our attention to agreement in his name and also NDC issued by respondent no.1.  However, it was the case of learned counsel for respondent no.1 that these two documents were forged and fabricated and not issued by respondent no.1. He also categorically stated that these properties were to be sold under the “SARFAEI Act” on “As is where is basis”.  They had executed the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and respondent no.2 and they have not come together to collect the same.  He also vehemently stated that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.12,55 lacs, the petitioner had paid only Rs.4.55 lacs and Rs.8 lacs had been paid by respondent no.2.  Counsels for respondent nos.1 and 2 reiterated that respondent no.2 had at no stage loss interest in the purchase and withdrawn her application for the said properties.

18.     The petitioner, further, could not explain as to how he was a “consumer” since it is an accepted fact that even as per his complaint, he was purchasing six residential properties which could no means be for his own residence. He has also mentioned in his complaint that he had since entered into an agreement to sell the said properties to respondent no.3. The petitioner in his complaint categorically stated that alongwith respondent no.2 purchased six properties under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest from respondent no.1. The petitioner could not produce any document or evidence to show that he has paid the full consideration for the said six properties or that respondent no.2 had withdrawn from the transaction. He could also not establish that he had brought these properties for earning his livelihood and not for carrying on any commercial activity.  Further, the petitioner had only entered into an agreement to sell and remedy for that is available to the petitioner for any grievance regarding the same being a suit for specific performance in a Civil Court.  Since, the purchase of properties on “As is where is basis”, he did not hire the services of respondent no.1 for provision of any facility or amenity.   This is at best a case of breach of contract.  Hence, the petitioner has the remedy to file a suit for specific performance in a Civil Court of Competent Jurisdiction.  The State Commission has given well-reasoned order dealing with all the aspects of the case.

19.     Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs.Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has 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 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.”  

20.     Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act.  Since, the State Commission has given detailed and reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed.

21.     No order as to cost.