1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the learned Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1022 of 2017, arising out of the Order dated 26.04.2017, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum No.1, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (for short the 'District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 511 of 2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned State Commission has committed an error in upholding the order passed by the learned District Forum. In fact, it was inadvertently written in the reply that due to mistake, while preparing the account of the respondent / complainant, the amount deposited was found sufficient and the account was closed for full and final payment. But, subsequently it was found that it was not the mistake of the petitioner but the amount was pending for deposition. Therefore, the findings given by both the foras below are not correct. Hence, the order deserves to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that in compliance of order of both the foras below, the mutation of the name of the nominee has now been done. As far as the rest directions are concerned those deserve to be set aside.
5. Considered the submissions so made, perused the record and gone through the orders passed by both the foras below.
6. The learned State Commission while upholding the order passed by the District Forum, has observed in para-9 of the order that receipts presented by the respondent / complainant marked as Exhibit P-6 to P-8 depict that the complainant deposited the amount in instalments with the petitioner during the period from 18.10.2000 to 23.05.2007. In the letter dated 19.08.2013 (Exhibit D/1) the petitioner Board has clearly stated that an amount of Rs.20,306/- was mistakenly credited to the account of the complainant by the concerned employee. Subsequently upon depositing, Rs.36,400/- on 23.05.2007 by the complainant and the account was made NIL. On the basis of these records, the learned State Commission has observed that the petitioner Board cannot claim the interest on the amount of Rs.20,306/- amounting to Rs.43,460/-. This approach of the learned State Commission is just and equitable. There are concurrent findings of both the foras below.
7. Considering all these facts and circumstances there appears no illegality, irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, it was held as under:
"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 court below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of 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."
8. Very recently, in Rajesh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3764, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:
"13. In our opinion, the National Commission could not have interfered with pure finding of fact arrived at by the District and State Commissions while exercising revisional jurisdiction."
9. Hence in the considered opinion of this Bench, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the present revision petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed.
All the IAs pending in this revision petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.
