BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER For the Appellant Mr Bimal Kumar Berera and Mr Avniah Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent Mr Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate ORDER PER SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. This review petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) is directed against the order dated 31.10.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1117 of 2022 dismissing the appeal against order dated 09.09.2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Badaun (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 108 of 2010, allowing the complaint. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. For the reasons stated in the application for the condonation of delay in the filing of the revision, the delay of 24 days was condoned in the interest of justice. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent opened a recurring deposit account with the petitioner Post Office on 31.08.2004 for Rs 1500/- per month for a five year period with the Sub Post Office, Babrala, District Badaun. On the date of the last payment (24.08.2009) the balance of the amount deposited was Rs 70,000/- as per the Post Office. A loan of Rs 20,000/- was also shown as obtained on 13.01.2007. On presenting the passbook for the payment of the amount, respondent was informed by the petitioner no. 2 vide letter dated 17.08.2010 that claim had been temporarily cancelled as not valid although no reason was provided. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent approached the District Forum in CC no.108 of 2010 which was decided on contest in favour of the respondent/complainant directing refund of Rs 70,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of maturity (30.08.2009) till date of actual payment along with litigation cost and compensation of Rs 5,000/-. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the State Commission at admission stage holding that there was no ground for interference. The order of the State Commission is challenged before us. 4. It was contended that the respondent had admitted paying Rs 70/- per day to R.K. Sharma whereas he was required to deposit Rs 1500/- per month. Petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Shyama Devi dated 05.05.1978, 1978 AIR 1263 to argue that it cannot be held liable for the misdemeanour or negligence of its employee. It was contended that its employee, Raj Kapoor Sharma, a Group D employee, was not authorised to collect the amount from the depositor since he was employed as ED packer on 22.04.1974 and worked as a Group D employee/Train Mail Peon during the period of the deposit. For his acts of misappropriation in depositing only Rs 36,000/- in the account of the respondent, the said R.K. Sharma was arrested and subsequently dismissed from service on 16.07.2012. Petitioner’s case is that as a loan of Rs 20,000/- was already availed by the respondent, no dues were payable since it was the respondent who connived with the said R.K. Sharma in the commitment of a fraud. 5. The District Forum has held the Post Office liable for not producing a duplicate passbook or providing any reason for the temporary cancellation of the claim dated 17.08.2010. It has noted that though Post Office dismissed its employee R.K. Sharma for misappropriation, it did not file any case against it under the appropriate Section of the Indian Penal Code which establishes deficiency in service on its part. 6. The order of the District Forum is detailed and well-reasoned in setting out the reasons for the findings. 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 fora below have returned concurrent findings on facts 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 and re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse or arbitary. 7. 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 the same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner has not brought out any material deficiency or jurisdictional error in the orders of the fora below in the petition to justify invoking of revisional jurisdiction. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta (2011) 11 SCC 269 dated 18.03.2011 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.” 9. 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 SCC 286 dated 02.08.2016 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.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2019 in the case of T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 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.” 11. The District Forum’s order is detailed and has dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before us in this revision petition. The State Commission has held the appeal to be inadmissible on the basis of records holding that no case for appeal stands made out. The petitioner has not brought out any material irregularity of jurisdictional error in the impugned order to warrant interference of this Commission under its revisional jurisdiction. In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail. 12. We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of with this order. | 
