The petitioner/complainant had deposited a cheque for payment of a monthly bill but continued to receive reminders and threats of disconnection. To avoid service interruption, he made additional payments, including late fees. He subsequently filed a consumer complaint seeking substantial compensation for financial and emotional distress, as well as legal costs, after his attempts to resolve the issue directly with the service provider failed.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, proceeding ex parte due to the service provider's non-appearance, directed a refund of the disputed amount, Rs. 300, along with 8% interest and Rs. 5,000 as composite costs. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the complainant filed a first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was also dismissed, upholding the district forum's order.

The petitioner then approached the NCDRC, seeking enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 400,000, along with incidental costs and legal expenses. The NCDRC, however, dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.

Concurrent Findings: The NCDRC noted that the District Forum and the State Commission had rendered concurrent findings of fact, and it is not within the scope of revisional jurisdiction to re-assess or re-appreciate evidence in such cases.

Limited Revisional Powers: The NCDRC reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), is limited to cases where lower forums have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents: The NCDRC cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., and Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., to reinforce the principle that revisional jurisdiction should not be used to interfere with concurrent findings of fact.

No Material Irregularity: The NCDRC found no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the lower forums.

The NCDRC dismissed the revision petition, upholding the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. No costs were awarded.

This case underscores the importance of understanding the limitations of revisional jurisdiction in consumer protection cases. While consumers have the right to seek redressal for grievances, they must also recognize that higher forums will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear legal error or material irregularity. The case also highlights the importance of pursuing proportionate compensation and the need to follow the proper procedure in the consumer forum system.