1.      Revision Petition Nos. RP/850/2018 and RP/851/2018 have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by the Petitioner/ Complainant. These Revision Petitions challenged the Impugned orders dated 19.12.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (the ‘State Commission’), pertaining to First Appeal No. FA/410/2016 & FA/413/2016. The State Commission, in these appeals by the Complainant, partially upheld the impugned orders while modifying the compensation awarded, thereby affirming the decisions made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vizianagaram (the “District Forum”), in CC/71/2015 & CC/72/2015.

2.      Since the facts and questions of law involved in both the Revision Petition are substantially similar, except for minor variations in Dates, events and unit number, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, FA No. 410/2016 shall be considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from Consumer Complaint No. 71/2015.

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the Complaint filed before the District Forum & State Commission. Poosarla Krishna Rao (Since Deceased) is referred to as the Complainant (Petitioner), while M/s Ushodaya Real Estates & its 2 Partners are referred to as the Opposite Parties (OPs) and Shri Vasireddy Venkata Nagendra Srinivas is referred to as the 3^rd party (Respondent No. 4).

4.      The brief facts of the case, as per Complainant, are that on 29.01.1994, the Complainant booked a plot vide Booking No.1134 in a layout near Seven Road Junction, Srikakulam, AP, by paying Rs.450/- as per OP-1's scheme. On 10.08.1994, OP-1 executed an Agreement recognizing the Complainant as a member of its scheme. Pursuant thereto, he paid 60 monthly instalments of Rs.350/- each. Eventually, the Complainant was allotted Plot No. 814, spanning 248 Sq. Yds., in a draw held on 15.08.2009. However, it was alleged that on 31.08.2009, the OPs unlawfully sold the plot to a 3^rd party namely Shri Vasireddy Venkata Nagendra Srinivas, under registered sale deed No.2193/2009. Following this, the Complainant issued a notice dated 14.06.2011, demanding registration of Plot No. 814 or a refund of Rs.6 Lakh for the plot's cost and damages. However, the OPs did not respond to the notice.

5.      The Complainant initially filed a Consumer Complaint No.13/2011 before the District Forum in October 2011. The learned District Forum, in its Order dated 22.11.2013, dismissed the Complaint on grounds of limitation. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Complainant filed an appeal No. FA/1294/2013. The Learned State Commission, in its order dated 15.05.2014, upheld the dismissal of the appeal. Subsequently, the Complainant pursued a Revision, identified as RP/3626/2014 before this Commission. This Commission, upon review, nullified the rulings of the lower fora, determining that the complaint was not time-barred. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the District Forum to decide the complaint on merits. Following the remand, the Complaint was renumbered as CC No. 71/2015. In this Consumer Complaint, the Complainant prayed as follows:-

(i) To direct the Opposite parties to register the plot bearing No. 814 in S. No. 582/8, vide L.P. No. 77/99, measuring 248 Sq. Yards and to pay interest at 24% per annum on Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only) from February 1999 till date of registration and delivery of the plot to the Complainant.

(ii) To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for causing physical hardship, sever mental agony and financial hardship, severe mental agony and financial hardship at Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).

(ii) To pay costs of this complaint at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and such other relief as Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the complaint in the interests of justice.

6.      In their reply, OP-1 and 3 refuted the allegations and asserted that an amount totalling Rs.21,000/- was paid on behalf of the Complainant in 60 instalments of Rs.350/- each, from 21.01.1994 to 18.02.1999. Subsequently, Plot No. 814, measuring 240 Square Yards, was assigned to the Complainant. It was claimed that the Complainant's brother handled the transaction on his behalf, and the Complainant never directly approached the OPs. The OPs contended that since the scheme was closed in 1999 and the Complainant failed to initiate any action to secure a sale deed, his right to obtain one for the plot has lapsed due to limitation. Additionally, it was asserted that the Complainant's brother requested the OPs to allocate the plot to another scheme member and refund the Rs.21,000/- to the Complainant. As neither the Complainant nor his brother retrieved the consideration amount within the specified timeframe, the OPs argued that there was no deficiency in service on their part, and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. In the counter of OP-2, it was contended that the complaint suffered from a misjoinder of parties, and the OP bore no liability to compensate the Complainant. Consequently, it was argued that the complaint lacked merit and should be dismissed.

7.      The District Forum in its Order dated 10.05.2016 allowed the complaint in part with the following findings:-

“….After the case record was received by the Forum both parties filed their valuation certificates issued by Joint Registrar, Ponduru and as seen from its contents, the cost of plot no. 814, administering 248 square yards is Rs.1,73,600/- as the value of the square yards is 700/-. Since the OPs having received the full consideration of the plot allotted to the complainant did not get it registered in his favor and as the said plot is not available for sale now the OPs are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,73,600/- to be the value of plot number 814 and also to pay damages and costs to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is in part is allowed directing the OPs 1 to 3 to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,73,600/- towards the cost of Plot No.814 and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages arid Rs.2,000/- towards costs which includes the advocate fee of Rs.1,000/-. The OPs- 1 to 3 are directed to comply the above said order within two months from today.”

8.      Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Appellant / Complainant filed an Appeal No. 410/2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission in its Order dated 19.12.2017 allowed the Appeal in part and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum with the following modification in awarded compensation: -

“10.

  ….For the foregoing reasons we allow the appeal in part and modify the award by enhancing the compensation to Rs.20,000/- in place of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Forum and confirm the order in all other respects.”

9.      The Petitioner/Complainant, dissatisfied with the Impugned Order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the State Commission, has filed the present Revision Petition No. 850 of 2018. The petition seeks to obtain pendente-lite interest on the awarded amount, i.e., Rs.1,73,600/-, from November 2011 until its realization. Additionally, the petition aims to pursue further compensation enhancements to Rs.3,00,000/-, towards the mental and physical hardships endured by the petitioner, which were not granted by the lower Learned Fora.

10.    Upon notice to the instant Revision Petition, the Respondents No. 1 and 3 appeared and filed their respective written arguments. However, none appeared for Respondent No. 2 and 4 despite multiple notices and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.11.2023.  

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record as well as the orders of the both the fora on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

12.    In the instant petition the only question raised by the Complainant for consideration pertains to pendent elite interest on the awarded amount, i.e., Rs.1,73,600/-, from November 2011 until its realization and compensation enhancements to Rs.3,00,000/-, towards the mental and physical hardships.

13.    With respect to the issue at hand, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 decided on 7.4.2022. However, it is be noted that in the mentioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted interest on the deposited amount in the case of a refund.  However, in the present case, the Petitioner had deposited 60 monthly instalments of Rs.350/- each, totalling Rs.21,000/-. The learned District Forum, in its order dated 10.05.2016, had ordered for refunded of Rs.1,73,600/-, after duly considering the valuation certificate issued by the Joint Registrar, Ponduru, at the present market rate as on date. The learned State Commission affirmed the same order. It is important to highlight that the amount of Rs.1,73,600/- determined by the learned District Forum specifically includes all compensations, including interest with respect to the plot in question. Consequently, the judgment in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has no directly applicable to the circumstances of the present case.

14.     It is well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which are pari materia to Section 21(b) the Act, 1986) confers a very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Thus, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

15.    The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under: -

"9. It is needless to say that 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 OP-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. .....”

16. Similarly, in a recent the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally  or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

17.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in both the present Revision Petitions and the Revision Petitions No.850 and 851 of 2018 are dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld.

18.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

19.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.