TATA COFFEE LTD. Vs. SRI N. SREENIVASALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are a set of four revision petitions filed by M/S. Tata Coffee Ltd. The four respondents herein had filed separate complaints before District Consumer Forum Bellary, seeking refund and compensation against the revision petitioners. All four complaints were allowed by the District Forum and appeals against them have been dismissed by the State Commission. By a common order, the State Commission has decided eight appeals, four filed by the present revision petitioners and the other four by the complainants. The latter had sought enhancement in the awards made by the District Forum. The State Commission has allowed the appeals of the respondent/complainants and dismissed the ones filed by the revision petitioner/OP. The revision petition thus has been filed against concurrent findings of fact by the District Forum as well as the State Commission.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the records as filed by the rival sides to the revision petitions. The two sides have also been heard at length by the Circuit Bench of this Commission at Bangalore on 06.2.2014. Mr. Dhananjaya Joshi, Advocate has been heard on behalf of M/s. Tata Coffee Ltd. and Mr. Vamshi Krishna, Advocate for four respondents/complainants.

(4.) AT the very outset it needs to be observed that these revision petitions arise under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This provision empowers the National Commission to calls for the record and pass appropriate order in any consumer dispute, pending or decided by any State Commission, 'where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.' The scope of proceedings under this provision came up for detailed consideration by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, : (2011) 11 SCC 269. In this case, the complaint filed against repudiation of the motor vehicle accident claim by the insurer, was allowed by the District Forum. The State Commission agreed with the findings of the District Forum, but limited the award to the amount of loss as assessed by the surveyor. The National Commission reversed the concurrent finding of fact relating to the licence of the driver and quashed the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. Civil Appeal against the order of the National Commission has been allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following observations: -