ANDHRA BANK Vs. YANAMREDDY POLLI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Sec. 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter called "the Bank") against the dated 16.08.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.536 of 2016. The said Appeal filed against the order dated 30.09.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Visakhapatnam (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.45 of 2016 was dismissed.

(2.) The impugned order has been challenged before me on the ground that the findings of the For as below are perverse as the For as below have ignored the fact that the Bank had a right of lien on all the properties lying with it of the debtor against any loan amount due towards the borrower, irrespective of the fact that whether the property had been pledged or not. It is submitted that the For as below have wrongly interpreted Sec. 171 of the Contract Act and ignored Clause 14 of the Hypothecation Letter signed by the borrower/Petitioner when the loan was sanctioned.

(3.) This Commission has a very limited revisional jurisdiction. It is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidences on record and substitute with its own conclusion on facts, especially when the findings on facts are concurrent. This Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the For as below only when there is perversity in the order or where there is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction. A finding can be said to be perverse finding when it is based on no evidences where the material piece of evidence on record has not been considered. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269" has held as under: