SUNIL KUMAR MAITY versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. on 21 January 2022

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 258

SUNIL KUMAR MAITY

v.

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

(Civil Appeal 432 of 2022)

JANUARY 21, 2022

[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisionaljurisdiction of National Consumer Commission – Ambit and scope– Consumer complaint against bank by a customer (appellant)alleging blunder in credit of cheque amount – The amount wascredited to account of second respondent, another customer with asimilar name who was having account in the same bank branch –Complaint allowed by Consumer Forum – Order partly upheld byState Consumer Commission – Revision application filed byrespondent-bank against order of State Consumer Commissionallowed by National Consumer Commission – Propriety – Held: Onfacts, not proper – Revisional jurisdiction of the National ConsumerCommission u/s.21(b) is extremely limited – It should be exercisedonly in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in thesaid provision, namely when it appears to the National Commissionthat the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested init by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or hadacted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with materialirregularity – In the instant case, the National Commission itselfhad exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the reportfrom the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, cameto the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in notundertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that wasrequired – Though a party can produce additional evidence at theappellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law,that is as contemplated in order-41, R.27, CPC – Apart from thefact that there is a vast difference between exercise of appellatejurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction, no such application wasfiled by the respondent-bank before the National Commission –Underthe circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commissionon its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted– Impugned order of National Commission accordingly set aside.

SUNIL KUMAR MAITY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complaint before forumunder the Act – Entertainability – Held: The anvil on whichentertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to bedetermined, is whether the questions, though complicated they maybe, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry –Requirement of leading detailed evidence cannot be a ground toshut the doors of any forum created under the Consumer ProtectionAct.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, r.27 – Evidence– Production of additional evidence – Requirements for – Held:Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellatestage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is ascontemplated in Order XLI, r.27 – The party has to establish thatnotwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence wasnot within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, beproduced by it at the time when the decree appealed against waspassed.

Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Inapplicability – When – On facts,held: The National Consumer Commission grossly erred in observingin the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be atliberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if hechooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file anapplication u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statementof Counsel for the respondent-bank that it will not press the issueof limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court– Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission isin utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in as muchas s.5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civilsuit in the Civil Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1. Pending the revision application filed byrespondent-SBI, the National Commission had called for a reporton the whole matter from the SBI. Accordingly, a report dated19[th] March, 2019 was filed by the Regional Manager of the SBI.Relying upon the said report, the National Commission allowedthe revision application filed by the bank, by observing inter-aliathat though revisional jurisdiction of the Commission under Asection 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a definedpurview and ambit, it does allow interference if gravemisappreciation of evidence or superficial appraisal of a case isdiscernible on the part of the two fora below. This court is at aloss to understand as to how the National Commission could havesought for a report at the revisional stage, that too from an officerBof the party which already had an opportunity to submit all thedocuments necessary for the purpose of defending itself beforethe Consumer Forum, and as to how such a report in the form ofan additional evidence produced at the revisional stage could be relied upon, in respect of which the two fora below had noCopportunity to deal with. [Para 8][266-C-F]

2. The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commissionunder Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 isextremely limited. It should be exercised only in case ascontemplated within the parameters specified in the saidDprovision, namely when it appears to the National Commissionthat the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vestedin it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, orhad acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with materialirregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itselfhad exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the reportEfrom the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report,had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred innot undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case thatwas required. In the opinion of the Court, both the StateCommission as well as the Consumer Forum had elaborately Fappreciated the documents on record and passed the reasonedorders. The report that tries to absolve the respondent-bank ofits liability is based on surmises and conjectures as it abstruselyand without evidence holds that the bank has every reason tobelieve that wrong account number was intentionally inserted by the appellant himself for reasons best known to the appellant orGon account of negligence by the appellant by not keeping thepassbook in his safe and proper custody. The suppositions arecontradictory as well as incredulous and fanciful. The appellantdid not know the second respondent and would not have known H

his account number unless given to him by a bank officer. Therewas no way that the appellant would have known that the secondrespondent, had an account in the same branch. No sane personwould deposit cash or cheque meant to be deposited in his accountin an account number belonging to another person with similarname. On the other hand, the bank should have been extracautious given the fact that accounts of the appellant, and thesecond respondent, were with the same bank branch. What israther surprising is that the National Commission for setting asidethe findings and conclusion recorded by the District and StateForum, simply reproduced the report by one of the officers of theparty in litigation with the appellant. The National Commissionhas not adverted and delved into the sound reasoning given bythe State Commission. [Para 9][266-F-H; 267-A-E]

3. Though a party can produce additional evidence at theappellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law,that is as contemplated in order-41, R.27. The party has toestablish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, suchevidence was not within its knowledge or could not even afterdue diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decreeappealed against was passed. Apart from the fact that there is avast difference between the exercise of appellate jurisdiction andthe revisional jurisdiction, no such application was filed by therespondent-bank before the National Commission. Under thecircumstances, calling for the report by the National Commissionon its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted.[Para 10][267-E-G]

4. Further, requirement of leading detailed evidence couldnot be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under theAct like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on whichentertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to bedetermined, is whether the questions, though complicated theymay be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry.[Para 11][267-G-H; 268-A-B]

CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. DevelopmentCredit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 : [2003] 3 Suppl.SCR 139 – relied on.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

262SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A5. The National Commission grossly erred in observing inthe impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be atliberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that ifhe chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file anapplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recordingthe statement of Counsel for the SBI that it will not press theBissue of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in aCivil Court. Such an observation/order passed by the NationalCommission is in utter ignorance of the provisions of theLimitation Act, in as much as Section 5 of the Limitation Act doesnot apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court. Be thatCas it may, the impugned order passed by the National Commissionsolely relying upon the suo-moto report called for from therespondent-bank during the pendency of the revision application,being highly erroneous, is set aside. [Para 12][268-B-D]

Case Law Reference

D[2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 139relied onPara 11

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 432 of

2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.06.2019 of the NationalEConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in RevisionPetition No.483 of 2018.

Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Devgan, G.Bhardwaj, Shubham Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellant.

FJitendra Kumar, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Leave granted.

G

2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(hereinafter referred to as “the National Commission”) on 07[th] June2019 had passed the following order in the Revision Petition No. 483 of2018 filed by the respondent-SBI.

H

“The revision petition is allowed. The complaint is dismissed,with liberty to the complainant to approach a competent civilcourt as per the law.

It goes without saying that, if the complainant chooses to bringaction in a civil court, he is free to file an application undersection 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency,the chronological facts and proceedings in the consumerprotection fora would be material and relevant towardsmaking such application.

Learned counsel for the revisionist State Bank of India submitsthat it will not press the issue of limitation if action is broughtby the complainant in a civil court.

Reasoned judgment to follow.”

3. The National Commission passed impugned judgement on 14[th]June, 2019, allowing the said Revision Petition. Being aggrieved by thesaid judgement and order, the appellant (original complainant) has filedthe present appeal.

4. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that theappellant-complainant had filed the consumer case being no. 08 of 2014before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur(hereinafter referred to as “the Consumer Forum”) alleging inter-aliathat the appellant i.e., Sunil Kr. Maity had a saving account number01190010167 with the respondent-bank since January, 2000. On24.02.2010, the said account number was changed to number10140478732. On 15.09.2012, the appellant went to deposit a sum ofRs. 500/- in the said account, when a staff of respondent-bank informedhim that the account number had again been changed and wrote accountnumber being 32432609504 on his passbook. The said amount wasdeposited in the said account number. Thereafter, on 16.01.2013, appellantdeposited a cheque being no. 670013 for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on SBI ofthe said Branch issued by one Prabir Pradhan having an SBI accountnumber 030608507950. When the appellant went to update his passbookon 11.12.2013, he noticed that his passbook showed the balance of Rs.59/- only, though he had not made any transaction between 16.01.2013to 11.12.2013. On the enquiry having been made, the respondent-bankinformed the appellant that there was another customer by the nameSunil Maity (the respondent no. 2 herein) whose account number was A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A32432609504 and the said account number was wrongly given to theappellant whose name was Sunil Kr Maity on 15.09.2012. The said SunilMaity (respondent no. 2) on 25.01.2013 and 28.01.2013 had withdrawnthe sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively from the saidaccount number. The appellant-complainant therefore wrote letters tothe respondent-bank but in vain. He thereafter filed the complaint beforeBthe Consumer Forum against the respondent-SBI and the said Sunil Maity.

5. Both the respondents had entered their appearance and filedtheir respective replies to the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant.The Consumer Forum after appreciating all the documents filed by theappellant as well as by the respondents in the light of their pleadings,Callowed the complaint vide the order dated 14.05.2014.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-bank hadpreferred the First Appeal being No. 784 of 2014 before the StateConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal(hereinafterreferred to as State Commission), which by the order dated 25 October,D2017partly allowed the appeal. The State Commission while confirmingthe rest of the order passed by the Consumer Forum, modified it to theextent that the order for fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem was struck off. TheState Commission after a closer scrutiny of the documents on record,observed in the said order as under:

E“On closer scrutiny of the documents on record, followingfacts emerge.

First, we find that there was complete parity in the signaturebeing put on the deposit slip pertaining to the disputed chequefor an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- vis-à-vis specimen signatureFof the Respondent No. 1 contained in the official record ofthe bank.

Secondly, documents on record show that the Respondent No.1 signs in English; whereas, ‘Sunil Maity’, account-holder ofsaving account no. 32432609504 signs in Bengali. SignificantGhere to note that while depositing the cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/-, the depositor signed in English and the name of thedepositor was mentioned as ‘Sunil Kr. Maity’.

Thirdly, it seems that the Respondent No. 1 voluntarilydisclosed the source wherefrom did he get the said cheque.HOn the other hand, the Respondent No. 2, stated to be a

salaried person, has not uttered any word in this regard. Since,Rs. 3.00.000/- is quite a considerable sum, reluctance of theRespondent No. 2 to disclose the source wherefrom did hereceive the said cheque, if at all received, does raise eyebrows.

Fourthly, it is only natural that one would write his nameproperly while filling up the deposit slip. There is no reasonto believe that ‘Sunil Maity’ (Respondent No. 1) would writehis name in the deposit slip as ‘Sunil Kumar Maity’.

Fifthly, since banks quite meticulously check the name,account no., amount, date etc. before/while crediting proceedsof cheques/demand drafts etc., it was but natural that whilethe disputed cheque was issued in the name of ‘Sunil Kr.Maity’, the Respondent No. 2 would impress upon the issuerof the said cheque to correctly write his name as ‘Sunil Maity’by issuing another cheque. The amount being quitesubstantial, the Respondent No. 2 could hardly afford suchleaving anything to chances.

Sixthly, there is nothing to show that Respondent No. 2 canwrite his name in English. Therefore, questions survives, howhe signed the deposit slip while depositing the cheque inEnglish.

Seventhly, it appears from the WV submitted by the appellantthat when the Respondent No. 1 lodged complaint with it, theAppellant, on several occasions, asked the Respondent No. 2to meet its Branch Manager. However, on one pretext or theother, the Respondent No. 2 avoided meeting him. An honestperson never fight shy of proving his bona fide.

Lastly, the Respondent No. 2 has not placed on record anycounter part of deposit slip to show that the said amount wereindeed deposited by him.

All these emerging facts induce us to hold that the disputedcheque indeed belonged to the Respondent No. 1.

………….

Given that it is virtually impossible for one to know the accountnumber of another person, and more so, as passbook is statedto be updated by Group ‘D’ staff of the bank, it would be A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amyopic not to believe that the goof up created at the end ofthe Appellant itself. Besides this, since the Appellant made agreat blunder while crediting the amount of the cheque to theaccount of Respondent No. 2, we feel, the Appellant must ownup due responsibility in this regard.”

B7. The respondent-bank being aggrieved by the said order hadpreferred the Revision Petition before the National Commission underSection 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred toas “the said Act”). The National Commission allowed the said revisionapplication vide the impugned order as stated hereinabove.

C8. It is pertinent to note that pending the revision application, theNational Commission had called for a report on the whole matter fromthe SBI. Accordingly, a report dated 19[th]March, 2019 was filed by theRegional Manager of the SBI. Relying upon the said report, the NationalCommission allowed the revision application filed by the bank, byobserving inter-alia that though revisional jurisdiction of the CommissionDunder section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 has a defined purview and ambit, itdoes allow interference if grave misappreciation of evidence or superficialappraisal of a case is discernible on the part of the two fora below. Thiscourt is at a loss to understand as to how the National Commission couldhave sought for a report at the revisional stage, that too from an officerEof the party which already had an opportunity to submit all the documentsnecessary for the purpose of defending itself before the Consumer Forum,and as to how such a report in the form of an additional evidence producedat the revisional stage could be relied upon, in respect of which the twofora below had no opportunity to deal with.F9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the NationalCommission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. Itshould be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parametersspecified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the NationalCommission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction notvested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or hadGacted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded itsrevisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bankand solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that thetwo fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisalHof the case that was required. In the opinion of the Court, both the State Commission as well as the Consumer Forum had elaborately appreciatedthe documents on record and passed the reasoned orders. The reportthat tries to absolve the respondent-bank of its liability is based on surmisesand conjectures as it abstrusely and without evidence holds that thebank has every reason to believe that wrong account number wasintentionally inserted by the appellant himself for reasons best known tothe appellant or on account of negligence by the appellant by not keepingthe passbook in his safe and proper custody. The suppositions arecontradictory as well as incredulous and fanciful. The appellant did notknow the second respondent and would not have known his accountnumber unless given to him by a bank officer. There was no way thatthe appellant would have known that the second respondent, namelySunil Maity had an account in the same branch. No sane person woulddeposit cash or cheque meant to be deposited in his account in an accountnumber belonging to another person with similar name. On the otherhand, the bank should have been extra cautious given the fact thataccounts of the appellant, Sunil Kumar Maity, and the second respondent,Sunil Maity, were with the same bank branch. What is rather surprisingis that the National Commission for setting aside the findings andconclusion recorded by the District and State Forum, simply reproducedthe report by one of the officers of the party in litigation with the appellant.The National Commission has not adverted and delved into the soundreasoning given by the State Commission as quoted above.

10. Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellatestage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is ascontemplated in order-41, R.27. The party has to establish thatnotwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was notwithin its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be producedby it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Apartfrom the fact that there is a vast difference between the exercise ofappellate jurisdiction and the revisional jurisdiction, no such applicationwas filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission. Underthe circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission onits own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted.

11. Further, it is also well settled legal position[1]that requirement ofleading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any 1 CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd.(2003) 7 SCC 233

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aforum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. Theanvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act isto be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated theymay be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry.

12. The National Commission therefore has grossly erred inBobserving in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant wouldbe at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if hechooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an applicationunder Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement ofLd. Counsel for the SBI that it will not press the issue of limitation ifaction is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court. Such an observation/Corder passed by the National Commission is in utter ignorance of theprovisions of the Limitation Act, in as much as Section 5 of the LimitationAct does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court. Bethat as it may, the impugned order passed by the National Commissionsolely relying upon the suo-moto report called for from the respondent-Dbank during the pendency of the revision application, being highlyerroneous, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Theorder passed by the State Commission is restored. The appeal standsallowed accordingly.

E

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

F

G

H