close
close

Mondor Festival

News with a Local Lens

NCDRC cannot act as an appellate court to review the facts
minsta

NCDRC cannot act as an appellate court to review the facts

THE National Commission for the Resolution of Consumer Disputeschaired by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC is limited in nature and it cannot act as an appellate body.

Brief facts of the case

The complainant purchased land from a third party (original allottee), owner of M/s Prachi Trade Line, through a registered sale deed. Before finalizing, he confirmed with the opposite party/OP (owner) that there was no objection to the transfer. He settled an outstanding payment of Rs. 6,958 and formally requested a transfer of ownership with all necessary documents and fees. The OP claimed that a discrepancy in the name of the company (“M/s Prachi Trade Link” instead of “M/s Prachi Trade Line”) was rendering the unit inactive and demanded Rs. 75,000 as holding charges and Rs. 2,81,250 as transfer charges. The complainant argued that these accusations were baseless as no official name change had taken place and the production unit remained operational. The complainant sought an order from the District Forum, directing the OP to recognize the unit as his property as per the Land Transfer Rules, 1979 and transfer the same without additional charges. The district forum upheld the complaint and directed the PO to transfer the land to the complainant and pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as court costs. Accordingly, the OP appealed to the Rajasthan State Commission, which dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the PO filed a review petition with the National Commission.

Challenges from the opposing party

The OP claimed that M/s Prachi Trade Line, the original allottee, had not started production within the required time and had changed the name of the company without approval. The complainant did not provide a no-objection certificate before purchasing the land. The OP claimed there was no relationship with the consumer and the complaint was unfounded. They stated that the unit was not functional at the time of transfer, justifying the demand for transfer fee of Rs. 2,81,250. They denied the claim that the name change had no legal effect, pointing to the delay in filing as the reason for paying the fee. No official report has confirmed the production of M/s Prachi Trade Line. The OP denied any negligence or unfair practices and requested that the complaint be dismissed.

Observations of the National Commission

The National Commission observed that despite the error, both names referred to the same owner, operating on the same plot. The Commission noted that its review jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the 1986 Act is limited. There was no illegality or substantial irregularity in the orders of the State or District forum. The decision is in accordance with Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India and Anr. And Rajiv Shukla v Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., where it was held that review jurisdiction is limited to cases involving jurisdictional errors or substantial irregularities. Likewise, in Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., it was held that the NCDRC cannot act as an appellate court to review the facts. Thus, the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum were complied with without interference.

Case title: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) vs. Dwarka Prasad

File number: RP No. 1327/2019

Click here to read/download the order