1. IN this revision, there is challenge to order dated 14.6.2011, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short as ''State Commission '').
2. BRIEF facts are that respondent/complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short as ''District Forum '') stating that she is a member of the petitioner/opposite party-Society. In October 2008, there was a sudden fire near entrance of ''A '' Wing in which meters of all flat owners including that of respondents were burnt and damaged. Without calling for any meeting Rs. 2,000 was collected from all flat owners of A and B Wing and new meters were installed for them, but meter was not given to the respondent. Hence, respondent filed the complaint.
Petitioner did not file any written statement before the District Forum and later on was proceeded ex parte.
3. DISTRICT Forum,vide order dated 5.12.2009, partly allowed the complaint and passed the following directions:
"(i) The opposite party must immediately make efforts and give assistance to the complainant to obtain new meter connection from Electricity Supply Company. The Society and the Company has no right and authority to create hurdles in getting electric supply and hence the electric meter connection and restoration of electric supply be done within 48 hrs. of receiving the order copy. (ii) If the order as passed is not complied, strict action will be taken on opposite party on filing execution and will not be let off and orders for penal action will be issued. (iii) The costs of Rs. 2,000 in this complaint be paid by the opposite party to the complainant and should not harass the complainant any more. "
4. BEING dissatisfied with the order of District Forum, respondent filed an appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation and costs.
State Commission, as per impugned order, partly allowed the appeal and passed following order:
"(i) Besides the reliefs already granted by the District Forum, the respondent/original oppo-nent Society is further directed to pay the appellant/original complainant, an amount of Rs. 65,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony and harassment. (ii) The respondent/original oppo-nent Society shall also pay to the appellant/original com-plainant, an amount of Rs. 5,000 towards costs of appeal. (iii) The respondent/original oppo-nent Society shall comply with the foregoing order within a period of one month from the date of this order failing which, it shall also be liable to pay the appellant/original complai-nant, interest @ 9% p.a., on the amount of Rs. 65,000 as from the date of expiry of stipulated period of one month till realization of the amount by the appellant/original complai-nant. "
5. PETITIONER by filing this revision petition has challenged the impugned order.
6. WE have heard the learned Counsel for parties and perused the record.
On 13.12.2011, this Commission observed:
"Mr. Subodh Gokhale, Advocate for the petitioner, Ratnatej Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. present and informs that compliance with the direction of this Commission dated 11.8.2011 has been made and reported. As for compliance, a report has been received on 7.12.2011. The meters of all the flat owners have been connected and receipts have been filed in 12 cases. Counsel clarified that meters of all flat owners have been connected. In the case of respondent Mrs. Asavari Avinash Gokhale, the Counsel explains that meter has already been energized though the position is not clearly reflected in the para 4 of the compliance. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Vinay Navare, Advocate appears for the respondent and informs that no appeal has been filed against the impugned order by the respondent. Therefore, the present revision gets limited to the issue of compensation awarded by State Commission, as compliance with the direction to ensure power supply has already been ensured. "
7. THUS , electricity meter of respondent has already been energized. Only question remains for consideration is whether compensation awarded by State Commission is justified or not.
8. PETITIONER was ex parte before the District Forum. As such, it has no defence and a valuable right has accrued to the respondent.
Present petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ''Act ''). After going through the record, it is manifestly clear that no legal issue is involved in this case. Since, there are concurrent findings of facts by two Fora below against the petitioner, the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act, is very limited.
9. WITH advantage we can quote the following observation made by Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC)=IV (2011) SLT 303=2011 (3) Scale 654:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora. "
10. THUS , no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Act. Since, two Fora below have given detailed and reasoned order, it does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
Hence, revision petition is hereby dismissed.
11. PARTIES to bear their own costs. Revision Petition dismissed.
