SUNIL KUMAR MAITYversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

                        [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) – Revisional
jurisdiction of National Consumer Commission – Ambit and scope
– Consumer complaint against bank by a customer (appellant)
alleging blunder in credit of cheque amount – The amount was
credited to account of second respondent, another customer with a
similar name who was having account in the same bank branch –
Complaint allowed by Consumer Forum – Order partly upheld by
State Consumer Commission – Revision application filed by
respondent-bank against order of State Consumer Commission
allowed by National Consumer Commission – Propriety – Held: On
facts, not proper – Revisional jurisdiction of the National Consumer
Commission u/s.21(b) is extremely limited – It should be exercised
only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the
said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission
that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in
it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had
acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity – In the instant case, the National Commission itself
had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report
from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, came
to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not
undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was
required – Though a party can produce additional evidence at the
appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law,
that is as contemplated in order-41, R.27, CPC – Apart from the
fact that there is a vast difference between exercise of appellate
jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction, no such application was
filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission –Under
the circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission
on its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted
– Impugned order of National Commission accordingly set aside.
                                258
   SUNIL KUMAR MAITY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.



       Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complaint before forum
under the Act – Entertainability – Held: The anvil on which
entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be
determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may
be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry –
Requirement of leading detailed evidence cannot be a ground to
shut the doors of any forum created under the Consumer Protection
Act.
       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 appellate
stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as
contemplated in Order XLI, r.27 – The party has to establish that
notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was
not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be
produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was
passed.
       Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Inapplicability – When – On facts,
held: The National Consumer Commission grossly erred in observing
in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be at
liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he
chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an
application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement
of Counsel for the respondent-bank that it will not press the issue
of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court
– Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission is
in utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in as much
as s.5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil
suit in the Civil Court.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD:1. Pending the revision application filed by
respondent-SBI, the National Commission had called for a report
on the whole matter from the SBI. Accordingly, a report dated
19th March, 2019 was filed by the Regional Manager of the SBI.
Relying upon the said report, the National Commission allowed
the revision application filed by the bank, by observing inter-alia
that though revisional jurisdiction of the Commission under
260            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a defined
      purview and ambit, it does allow interference if grave
      misappreciation of evidence or superficial appraisal of a case is
      discernible on the part of the two fora below. This court is at a
      loss to understand as to how the National Commission could have
      sought for a report at the revisional stage, that too from an officer
B
      of the party which already had an opportunity to submit all the
      documents necessary for the purpose of defending itself before
      the Consumer Forum, and as to how such a report in the form of
      an additional evidence produced at the revisional stage could be
      relied upon, in respect of which the two fora below had no
C     opportunity to deal with. [Para 8][266-C-F]
             2. The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission
      under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is
      extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as
      contemplated within the parameters specified in the said
D     provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission
      that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested
      in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or
      had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material
      irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself
      had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report
E     from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report,
      had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in
      not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that
      was required. In the opinion of the Court, both the State
      Commission as well as the Consumer Forum had elaborately
F     appreciated the documents on record and passed the reasoned
      orders. The report that tries to absolve the respondent-bank of
      its liability is based on surmises and conjectures as it abstrusely
      and without evidence holds that the bank has every reason to
      believe that wrong account number was intentionally inserted by
      the appellant himself for reasons best known to the appellant or
G     on account of negligence by the appellant by not keeping the
      passbook in his safe and proper custody. The suppositions are
      contradictory as well as incredulous and fanciful. The appellant
      did not know the second respondent and would not have known

H
   SUNIL KUMAR MAITY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.                  261


his account number unless given to him by a bank officer. There       A
was no way that the appellant would have known that the second
respondent, had an account in the same branch. No sane person
would deposit cash or cheque meant to be deposited in his account
in an account number belonging to another person with similar
name. On the other hand, the bank should have been extra
                                                                      B
cautious given the fact that accounts of the appellant, and the
second respondent, were with the same bank branch. What is
rather surprising is that the National Commission for setting aside
the findings and conclusion recorded by the District and State
Forum, simply reproduced the report by one of the officers of the
party in litigation with the appellant. The National Commission       C
has not adverted and delved into the sound reasoning given by
the State Commission. [Para 9][266-F-H; 267-A-E]
       3. Though a party can produce additional evidence at the
appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law,
that is as contemplated in order-41, R.27. The party has to           D
establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such
evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after
due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree
appealed against was passed. Apart from the fact that there is a
vast difference between the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and
the revisional jurisdiction, no such application was filed by the     E
respondent-bank before the National Commission. Under the
circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission
on its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted.
[Para 10][267-E-G]
      4. Further, requirement of leading detailed evidence could      F
not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the
Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on which
entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be
determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they
may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry.           G
[Para 11][267-G-H; 268-A-B]
      CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development
      Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 : [2003] 3 Suppl.
      SCR 139 – relied on.
                                                                      H
262             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A            5. The National Commission grossly erred in observing in
      the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would be at
      liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if
      he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an
      application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording
      the statement of Counsel for the SBI that it will not press the
B
      issue of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a
      Civil Court. Such an observation/order passed by the National
      Commission is in utter ignorance of the provisions of the
      Limitation Act, in as much as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does
      not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court. Be that
C     as it may, the impugned order passed by the National Commission
      solely relying upon the suo-moto report called for from the
      respondent-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 139          relied on               Para 11
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 432 of
      2022.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 14.06.2019 of the National
E     Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision
      Petition No.483 of 2018.
           Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Devgan, G.
      Bhardwaj, Shubham Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellant.

F             Jitendra 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 07th June
      2019 had passed the following order in the Revision Petition No. 483 of
      2018 filed by the respondent-SBI.

H
    SUNIL KUMAR MAITY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.                        263
                 [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

      “The revision petition is allowed. The complaint is dismissed,         A
      with liberty to the complainant to approach a competent civil
      court as per the law.
      It goes without saying that, if the complainant chooses to bring
      action in a civil court, he is free to file an application under
      section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency,       B
      the chronological facts and proceedings in the consumer
      protection fora would be material and relevant towards
      making such application.
      Learned counsel for the revisionist State Bank of India submits
      that it will not press the issue of limitation if action is brought    C
      by 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 the
said judgement and order, the appellant (original complainant) has filed     D
the present appeal.
       4. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
appellant-complainant had filed the consumer case being no. 08 of 2014
before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur
(hereinafter referred to as “the Consumer Forum”) alleging inter-alia        E
that the appellant i.e., Sunil Kr. Maity had a saving account number
01190010167 with the respondent-bank since January, 2000. On
24.02.2010, the said account number was changed to number
10140478732. On 15.09.2012, the appellant went to deposit a sum of
Rs. 500/- in the said account, when a staff of respondent-bank informed      F
him that the account number had again been changed and wrote account
number being 32432609504 on his passbook. The said amount was
deposited in the said account number. Thereafter, on 16.01.2013, appellant
deposited a cheque being no. 670013 for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on SBI of
the said Branch issued by one Prabir Pradhan having an SBI account
number 030608507950. When the appellant went to update his passbook          G
on 11.12.2013, he noticed that his passbook showed the balance of Rs.
59/- only, though he had not made any transaction between 16.01.2013
to 11.12.2013. On the enquiry having been made, the respondent-bank
informed the appellant that there was another customer by the name
Sunil Maity (the respondent no. 2 herein) whose account number was
                                                                             H
264             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     32432609504 and the said account number was wrongly given to the
      appellant whose name was Sunil Kr Maity on 15.09.2012. The said Sunil
      Maity (respondent no. 2) on 25.01.2013 and 28.01.2013 had withdrawn
      the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively from the said
      account number. The appellant-complainant therefore wrote letters to
      the respondent-bank but in vain. He thereafter filed the complaint before
B
      the Consumer Forum against the respondent-SBI and the said Sunil Maity.
              5. Both the respondents had entered their appearance and filed
      their respective replies to the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant.
      The Consumer Forum after appreciating all the documents filed by the
      appellant as well as by the respondents in the light of their pleadings,
C     allowed the complaint vide the order dated 14.05.2014.
             6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-bank had
      preferred the First Appeal being No. 784 of 2014 before the State
      Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal(hereinafter
      referred to as State Commission), which by the order dated 25 October,
D     2017partly allowed the appeal. The State Commission while confirming
      the rest of the order passed by the Consumer Forum, modified it to the
      extent that the order for fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem was struck off. The
      State 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, following
            facts emerge.
            First, we find that there was complete parity in the signature
            being put on the deposit slip pertaining to the disputed cheque
            for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- vis-à-vis specimen signature
F           of the Respondent No. 1 contained in the official record of
            the bank.
            Secondly, documents on record show that the Respondent No.
            1 signs in English; whereas, ‘Sunil Maity’, account-holder of
            saving account no. 32432609504 signs in Bengali. Significant
G           here to note that while depositing the cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/
            -, the depositor signed in English and the name of the
            depositor was mentioned as ‘Sunil Kr. Maity’.
            Thirdly, it seems that the Respondent No. 1 voluntarily
            disclosed the source wherefrom did he get the said cheque.
H           On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2, stated to be a
SUNIL KUMAR MAITY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.                    265
             [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

 salaried person, has not uttered any word in this regard. Since,    A
 Rs. 3.00.000/- is quite a considerable sum, reluctance of the
 Respondent No. 2 to disclose the source wherefrom did he
 receive the said cheque, if at all received, does raise eyebrows.
 Fourthly, it is only natural that one would write his name
 properly while filling up the deposit slip. There is no reason      B
 to believe that ‘Sunil Maity’ (Respondent No. 1) would write
 his 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 proceeds
 of cheques/demand drafts etc., it was but natural that while        C
 the disputed cheque was issued in the name of ‘Sunil Kr.
 Maity’, the Respondent No. 2 would impress upon the issuer
 of the said cheque to correctly write his name as ‘Sunil Maity’
 by issuing another cheque. The amount being quite
 substantial, the Respondent No. 2 could hardly afford such
 leaving anything to chances.                                        D

 Sixthly, there is nothing to show that Respondent No. 2 can
 write his name in English. Therefore, questions survives, how
 he signed the deposit slip while depositing the cheque in
 English.
                                                                     E
 Seventhly, it appears from the WV submitted by the appellant
 that when the Respondent No. 1 lodged complaint with it, the
 Appellant, on several occasions, asked the Respondent No. 2
 to meet its Branch Manager. However, on one pretext or the
 other, the Respondent No. 2 avoided meeting him. An honest
 person never fight shy of proving his bona fide.                    F
 Lastly, the Respondent No. 2 has not placed on record any
 counter part of deposit slip to show that the said amount were
 indeed deposited by him.
 All these emerging facts induce us to hold that the disputed
                                                                     G
 cheque indeed belonged to the Respondent No. 1.
 ………….
 Given that it is virtually impossible for one to know the account
 number of another person, and more so, as passbook is stated
 to be updated by Group ‘D’ staff of the bank, it would be           H
266             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A            myopic not to believe that the goof up created at the end of
             the Appellant itself. Besides this, since the Appellant made a
             great blunder while crediting the amount of the cheque to the
             account of Respondent No. 2, we feel, the Appellant must own
             up due responsibility in this regard.”
B            7. The respondent-bank being aggrieved by the said order had
      preferred the Revision Petition before the National Commission under
      Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to
      as “the said Act”). The National Commission allowed the said revision
      application vide the impugned order as stated hereinabove.
C             8. It is pertinent to note that pending the revision application, the
      National Commission had called for a report on the whole matter from
      the SBI. Accordingly, a report dated 19thMarch, 2019 was filed by the
      Regional Manager of the SBI. Relying upon the said report, the National
      Commission allowed the revision application filed by the bank, by
      observing inter-alia that though revisional jurisdiction of the Commission
D     under section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 has a defined purview and ambit, it
      does allow interference if grave misappreciation of evidence or superficial
      appraisal of a case is discernible on the part of the two fora below. This
      court is at a loss to understand as to how the National Commission could
      have sought for a report at the revisional stage, that too from an officer
E     of the party which already had an opportunity to submit all the documents
      necessary for the purpose of defending itself before the Consumer Forum,
      and as to how such a report in the form of an additional evidence produced
      at the revisional stage could be relied upon, in respect of which the two
      fora below had no opportunity to deal with.

F            9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National
      Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It
      should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters
      specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National
      Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not
      vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had
G     acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
      In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its
      revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank
      and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the
      two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal
H     of the case that was required. In the opinion of the Court, both the State
    SUNIL KUMAR MAITY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.                              267
                 [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

Commission as well as the Consumer Forum had elaborately appreciated               A
the documents on record and passed the reasoned orders. The report
that tries to absolve the respondent-bank of its liability is based on surmises
and conjectures as it abstrusely and without evidence holds that the
bank has every reason to believe that wrong account number was
intentionally inserted by the appellant himself for reasons best known to
                                                                                   B
the appellant or on account of negligence by the appellant by not keeping
the passbook in his safe and proper custody. The suppositions are
contradictory as well as incredulous and fanciful. The appellant did not
know the second respondent and would not have known his account
number unless given to him by a bank officer. There was no way that
the appellant would have known that the second respondent, namely                  C
Sunil Maity had an account in the same branch. No sane person would
deposit cash or cheque meant to be deposited in his account in an account
number belonging to another person with similar name. On the other
hand, the bank should have been extra cautious given the fact that
accounts of the appellant, Sunil Kumar Maity, and the second respondent,
                                                                                   D
Sunil Maity, were with the same bank branch. What is rather surprising
is that the National Commission for setting aside the findings and
conclusion recorded by the District and State Forum, simply reproduced
the report by one of the officers of the party in litigation with the appellant.
The National Commission has not adverted and delved into the sound
reasoning given by the State Commission as quoted above.                           E
       10. Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate
stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law, that is as
contemplated in order-41, R.27. The party has to establish that
notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not
within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced            F
by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Apart
from the fact that there is a vast difference between the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction and the revisional jurisdiction, no such application
was filed by the respondent-bank before the National Commission. Under
the circumstances, calling for the report by the National Commission on
its own from the officer of the bank was absolutely unwarranted.                   G

      11. Further, it is also well settled legal position1that requirement of
leading 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                                                                   H
268              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The
      anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is
      to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they
      may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry.
             12. The National Commission therefore has grossly erred in
B     observing in the impugned order that the appellant-complainant would
      be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he
      chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application
      under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recording the statement of
      Ld. Counsel for the SBI that it will not press the issue of limitation if
      action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court. Such an observation/
C     order passed by the National Commission is in utter ignorance of the
      provisions of the Limitation Act, in as much as Section 5 of the Limitation
      Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court. Be
      that as it may, the impugned order passed by the National Commission
      solely relying upon the suo-moto report called for from the respondent-
D     bank during the pendency of the revision application, being highly
      erroneous, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The
      order passed by the State Commission is restored. The appeal stands
      allowed accordingly.


E     Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.




F




G




H