Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by Sunil Kr. Maity (appellant) against the State Bank of India (respondent bank) and another customer, Sunil Maity (respondent no. 2), alleging that the bank wrongfully credited a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- intended for the appellant's account to the account of respondent no. 2 due to a bank error in providing an incorrect account number. The appellant had a savings account with the bank since 2000, and on 15.09.2012, a bank staff member provided him with a new account number, which later turned out to belong to respondent no. 2. On 16.01.2013, the appellant deposited a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/-, but when he updated his passbook on 11.12.2013, he found only Rs. 59/- balance, as respondent no. 2 had withdrawn the funds on 25.01.2013 and 28.01.2013. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur, allowed the complaint on 14.05.2014, holding the bank liable. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, partly allowed the bank's appeal on 25.10.2017, confirming the liability but striking off a fine. The bank then filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which on 07.06.2019 and 14.06.2019 allowed the revision, dismissed the complaint, and permitted the appellant to approach a civil court, relying on a report called from the bank's Regional Manager. The core legal issues were whether the National Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by calling for and relying on the bank's report, and whether the lower fora had properly appreciated the evidence. The appellant argued that the National Commission acted beyond its limited revisional powers and improperly admitted additional evidence, while the bank contended through its report that the error might have been due to the appellant's negligence. The Supreme Court analyzed that revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is extremely limited and should only be exercised in cases of jurisdictional errors or illegal actions, not for re-appreciating evidence. The court held that the National Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by calling for the report and relying on it to overturn the lower fora's reasoned orders, which had elaborately appreciated the documents. It noted that additional evidence cannot be introduced at the revisional stage without due diligence and a proper application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was not done. The court emphasized that consumer forums are not bound by strict evidence rules and can decide based on documents and pleadings. It found the State Commission's reasoning sound, highlighting discrepancies in signatures and the bank's failure to exercise caution with similar-named accounts. The decision reinstated the orders of the Consumer Forum and State Commission, allowing the appeal and holding the bank liable for the wrongful crediting.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 21(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The National Commission exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by calling for a report from the respondent bank and relying on it to set aside the reasoned orders of the lower fora - Held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is extremely limited and should be exercised only when the State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity - The National Commission's actions were unwarranted and beyond its scope (Paras 8-9). B) Civil Procedure - Evidence - Additional Evidence at Revisional Stage - Order XLI Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The National Commission improperly admitted additional evidence in the form of a bank report at the revisional stage without due diligence or application - Held that additional evidence can be produced at appellate stage only with due diligence and proper application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, and revisional jurisdiction differs significantly from appellate jurisdiction - The report was inadmissible and based on surmises (Paras 10-11). C) Consumer Law - Consumer Disputes - Evidence Appreciation - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The lower fora (Consumer Forum and State Commission) had properly appreciated documents and pleadings to conclude that the bank was liable for wrongfully crediting funds to another account - Held that consumer forums are not bound by strict evidence rules and can decide based on available documents - The State Commission's detailed reasoning was sound and should not have been overturned (Paras 5-6, 9). D) Banking Law - Bank's Duty of Care - Negligence - Not mentioned - The bank failed to exercise due caution when handling accounts of customers with similar names (Sunil Kr. Maity and Sunil Maity) at the same branch - Held that the bank should have been extra cautious and its negligence led to the wrongful crediting of the appellant's cheque to another account - The bank's liability was established based on factual findings (Paras 4, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by calling for and relying on a report from the respondent bank at the revisional stage, and whether the lower fora had properly appreciated the evidence on record
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the National Commission, and reinstated the orders of the Consumer Forum and State Commission, holding the bank liable for wrongful crediting of funds
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act
- 1986 is extremely limited and must be exercised only within specified parameters
- such as jurisdictional errors or illegal exercise of jurisdiction
- Additional evidence cannot be introduced at the revisional stage without due diligence and proper application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Consumer forums are not required to follow strict rules of evidence and can decide cases based on documents and pleadings
- Banks have a duty of care and must exercise caution when handling accounts with similar names
