SUNIL KUMAR MAITY versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 21-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 258
258
SUNIL KUMAR MAITY
v.
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal 432 of 2022)
JANUARY 21, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisional
jurisdiction of National Consumer Commission – Ambit and scope
– Consumer complaint against bank by a customer (appellant)
alleging blunder in credit of cheque amount – The amount was
credited to account of second respondent, another customer with a
similar name who was having account in the same bank branch –
Complaint allowed by Consumer Forum – Order partly upheld by
State Consumer Commission – Revision application filed by
respondent-bank against order of State Consumer Commission
allowed by National Consumer Commission – Propriety – Held: On
facts, not proper – Revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer
Commission u/s.21(b) 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 respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, came
to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not
undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was
required – Though a party can produce additional evidence at the
appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law,
that is as contemplated in order-41, R.27, CPC – Apart from the
fact that there is a vast difference between exercise of appellate
jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction, no such application was
filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission –Under
the circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission
on its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted
– Impugned order of National Commission accordingly set aside.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complaint before forum
under the Act – Entertainability – Held: The anvil on which
entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be
determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may
be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry –
Requirement of leading detailed evidence cannot be a ground to
shut the doors of any forum created under the Consumer Protection
Act.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, r.27 – Evidence
– Production of additional evidence – Requirements for – Held:
Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate
stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as
contemplated in Order XLI, r.27 – The party has to establish that
notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was
not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be
produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was
passed.
Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Inapplicability – When – On facts,
held: The National Consumer Commission grossly erred in observing
in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be at
liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he
chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an
application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement
of Counsel for the respondent-bank that it will not press the issue
of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court
– Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission is
in utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in as much
as s.5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil
suit in the Civil Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Pending the revision application filed by
respondent-SBI, the National Commission had called for a report
on the whole matter from the SBI. Accordingly, a report dated
19th March, 2019 was filed by the Regional Manager of the SBI.
Relying upon the said report, the National Commission allowed
the revision application filed by the bank, by observing inter-alia
that though revisional jurisdiction of the Commission under
SUNIL KUMAR MAITY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
section 21(b) of the Consumer Prot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.