The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 21.02.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 329 of 2008 arising out of the order dated 27.12.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 104 of 2007.

2.     The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/ complainant joined as a chit member of petitioner no.1/ opposite party no.1 in a Chit Series no. RTL05J-8 conducted by the petitioners at Karimnagar Branch. Under this the monthly subscription was Rs.10,000/- payable for 50 months and the total chit value was of Rs.5,00,000/- which commenced from 25.11.2005.  The respondent paid 22 instalments of Rs.2,20,000/- including the dividends regularly. The respondent participated in the chit but did not claim any prize amount in respect of the chit.  The respondent stood surety for Mr Surya Prakash who was one of the chit member. The said member defaulted in the paying prescribed chit amount. Hence, the branch member of petitioner no.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.46,308 against Surya Prakash and others including the respondent vide OS no.364 of 2005 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

3.     In July 2007, the petitioner no.2 threatened the respondent to deduct the amount from the respondent’s amount and adjust the same in the account of Surya Prakash. The respondent requested the petitioner no.2 not to deduct the amount. On 09.07.2007, the petitioner no.2 instead of rendering the good service had a legal notice issued to petitioner no.2 requesting not to deduct any amount from his chit account. Despite receipt of notice on 10.07.2007, the petitioner no.2 did reply and intentionally did not receive the instalment amount from the respondent with a malafide intention.

4.     On 06.08.2007, the respondent filed his written statement in OS no.364 of 2005 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. On 09.08.2007 the petitioner issued a letter of removal to the respondent and ascertained that the amount due to him was Rs.59,970/-.

5.     On 14.08.2007, the respondent obtained a cheque bearing no.439262 for Rs.16,000/- on 14.08.2007 towards monthly subscription of July and August of 2007 which was sent to petitioner no.2 who did not accept it. On 17.08.2007, the respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner no.2 which was received along with the said cheque on 18.08.2007. The respondent received a registered letter from petitioner no.2 which was the removal letter stating that respondent has failed to pay the arrears despite of notice dated 13.07.2007.  The petitioner no.2 stated in his removal letter that the respondent had paid Rs.85,120/- and deducted 5% of the chit amount towards damages for breach of contract and the net amount payable was Rs.59,970/- to the respondent.

6.     In response, the respondent filed consumer complaint no.104 of 2007 before the District Forum. Petitioner no.2 filed its counter admitting that the respondent was a subscriber of the chit and he had executed the agreement of chit agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was contended that the case was not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed with cost. The respondent had paid only 20 instalments and not 22. The respondent stood surety to Surya Prakash with petitioner no.2 branch in view of the default committed by Surya Prakash.  Petitioner no.2 withdrew the above suit as not pressed in view of the payment made by respondent/ guarantor of Surya Prakash.  Since the respondent committed default in payment of instalments, petitioner no.2 got issued a registered notice on 09.08.2007 for removal of the membership of the respondent from the said chit. The respondent filed the said removal letter along with the complaint. The respondent neither disputed the said notice nor gave any reply. He, however, sent a cheque for Rs.16,000/- which was credited to the chit account of the respondent. The said amount was not credited towards instalments for the months of July and August 2007. Petitioner no.2 has clearly mentioned in the removal notice dated 09.08.2007 after adjustment of Rs.55,867/- to the chit of Surya Prakash that the amount payable to the respondent was Rs.85,120/-. After deducting foremen’s commission, of 5%, the chit value comes to Rs.25,000/-. After accounting for Rs.150/- towards incidental charges, the respondent was entitled to Rs.59,970/- only. However, he was entitled to the said amount only after completion of the chit period i.e., 25.12.2009 as per the terms of the Chit agreement.

7.     The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Section of 22 of Law of Chit Funds and Lotteries in AP ALT Publications 1993 edition Section 22 of unamended Act which enables a defaulting subscriber to recover from the Foreman his contributions subject to the condition for withdrawal of the prize amount by a subscriber.

8.     The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.2,04,000/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint i.e., 27.09.2007 and cost of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

9.     Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner herein preferred First Appeal no.329 of 2008 before the State Commission. The State Commission on 29.11.2010 dismissed the First Appeal no.329 of 2008 and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

10.   Dissatisfied by the order dated 29.11.2010 of the State Commission, the petitioner’s preferred revision petition no.257 of 2011 before this Commission. Vide order dated 07.09.2016, this Commission allowed RP no.257 of 2011 setting aside the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below and the matter remitted back to the State Commission with the direction they should allow the parties to file evidence in support of their respective claims and to determine afresh whether the action of the petitioners/OPs in deducting the amount from the account of the respondent was justified or not. The amount payable to the respondent was to be then worked out and ordered to be returned to the complainant after observing due formalities. On remand the State Commission heard the matter afresh and passed orders on 21.02.2017 whereby it allowed the appeal in part and modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.1,95,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 27.09.2007 with cost of Rs.1000/-.

11.   Hence, the present revision petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside orders dated 21.02.2017 of the State Commission in FA no. 329 of 2008 and order dated 27.12.2007 in CC no.104 of 2007 of the District Forum (incorrectly mentioned in the prayer as CC no.329 of 2008).

12.   I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records carefully.

13.   Learned counsel for the petitioner no.1 is a Private Limited Company carrying on chit fund business as per the proviso of AP Chit Fund Act, 1971.  Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent never paid 22 monthly instalment of Rs.2,20,000/- including the dividend. In fact the respondent has paid only 20 instalments which includes Rs.16,000/- paid subsequent to issuance of removal notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he stood surety to one Mr A Surya Prakash with petitioner no.2 Branch. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no.2 file a suit for recovery of Rs.46,308/- before the Principal Civil Judge Junior at Karimnagar. Since the amount was adjusted, the suit was withdrawn as not pressed due to the payment made by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has adjusted the amount only as per the request of the respondent. It was denied that the petitioner no.2 was not receiving the instalments amount from the respondent. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of the said removal notice dated 09.08.2007 the respondent has paid only 18 chit instalments, i.e., upto April 2007 and committed default in payment of more than 3 chit instalments for the period from May to July 2007.

14.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NI Pra Channabasava Deshikendra Swamigalue Matadhipathigalu Kannada Mutt vs C P Kaveeramma and Ors., (2013) 16 SCC 565 decided on 06.05.2013 as well as this Commission in the case of M/s Siri Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., vs B Sampath Kumar, RP no. 1813 of 2007 decided on 23.08.2012.

15.   Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order dated 21.02.2017 in FA no. 329 of 2008 passed by the State Commission and the order dated 27.12.2007 in CC no. 329 of 2008 passed by the District Forum, Karimnagar be set aside.

16.   Learned counsel for the respondent during the course of the arguments stated that the respondent joined as a chit member in the petitioner no.2 Branch for a chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- and the date of commencement was 25.11.2005 and the date of termination was 25.12.2009 and monthly subscription @ Rs.10,000/- for a period of 50 months. The respondent paid 22 monthly instalments of Rs.2,20,000/- and has not participated in the chit auction or not received the prize money. Learned counsel for the respondent admitted that he stood surety for one Mr Surya Prakash who committed default. The Branch Manager filed a suit for recovery of money of Rs.46,308/- against the said Surya Prakash and others including the respondent. Since the total suit amount towards the full satisfaction of the claim and the suit was closed as not pressed, learned counsel for the respondent stated that respondent suffered loss and mental agony and there was deficiency in service on behalf of petitioner no.2, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner no.2 in their reply have stated that respondent paid only 20 monthly instalment and falsely alleged that they adjusted an amount of Rs.55,865/-.  He further alleged that Surya Prakash was not a chit member of the petitioner no.2 branch. The said Surya Prakash was the chit member of CVRN Road Branch, Karimnagar and the said Branch Manager filed the suit for consolidate amount. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per Chit Fund Act, Chit Agreement and provisions of Bye laws, it is clearly mentioned that the subscriber has to commit default in payment for three consecutive monthly instalments for removal of membership. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent joined as a Chit member to save the money for his domestic necessities but the petitioners wrongfully removed the membership. He submits that the District Forum has passed the order without any error and hearing both sides. Learned counsel also submits that there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, the revision petition be dismissed with costs.

17.   The key issue in this revision petition is whether the lower fora appreciated the material brought on record with regard to the payment of instalments and alleged default as per the rules of the Chit Fund. Both the lower fora have returned concurrent findings on facts. This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

18.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Company (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held that:

“23. 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.   Reiterating this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors  (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 held:

“17. 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.”

20.   Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs and Ors vs N Madhava Rao and Ors, dated 05.04.2019 held as under:

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

21.   From the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidences led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse on account of any jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

22.    The foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. It is seen that the orders of these fora are based on evidence on record.  In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretation of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this petition is liable to fail.

23.   I, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference of this Commission. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present revision petition is, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed. The order of the State Commission is affirmed.