Clerical Error Leads to Consumer Victory: NCDRC Rejects RIICO's Appeal.


25 November 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a revision petition filed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) Ltd., affirming the concurrent findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwada, and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan. The case centered on a dispute over transfer fees demanded by RIICO from a plot purchaser, following a discrepancy in the firm name of the original allottee.

The complainant, Dwarka Prasad, had purchased an industrial plot and production unit from Smt. Neera Kapoor, the proprietor of M/s Prachi Trade Line. RIICO, however, demanded substantial transfer fees, claiming the unit was inactive due to a discrepancy in the firm's name, recorded as "M/s Prachi Trade Link" in their records, instead of the original "M/s Prachi Trade Line."


 

 

The District Forum, after examining the evidence, concluded that the production unit was operational under Smt. Kapoor's proprietorship, and the name discrepancy was a clerical error. It ruled that RIICO's demand for transfer fees was unjustified and arbitrary, ordering RIICO to recognize the unit as operational and transfer the plot to the complainant without additional fees. The State Commission upheld this order, finding no reason to differ from the District Forum's findings.

RIICO challenged these orders, arguing that the complainant did not obtain a No Objection Certificate and that the firm name discrepancy rendered the unit inactive. They also contended that the original allottee should have been made a party to the complaint.

However, the NCDRC, in its ruling, emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., and Narendran Sons v National Insurance Co. Ltd., the NCDRC reiterated that it can only intervene when the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.

The NCDRC found no such irregularities in the orders of the lower fora. It noted that the District Forum had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the name discrepancy was a clerical error, and the production unit was indeed operational. This finding was upheld by the State Commission.

The NCDRC rejected RIICO's arguments, stating that the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission, based on the appreciation of evidence, did not warrant interference in its revisional jurisdiction. The NCDRC concluded that the lower fora's orders did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity and were thus affirmed.

The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the findings of lower consumer fora when they are based on sound appreciation of evidence and do not exhibit jurisdictional errors or material irregularities. It reinforces the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, ensuring that concurrent findings are not lightly overturned.


Section 21, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986