M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD v. MS. SURIYA NAHEED

1. A complaint was filed by respondent before the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “State Commission”) whereby the complainants, alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, prayed for following: - “a) Allow the present Complaint by way of directing the opposite parties to pay the consideration amount of Rs. 30,08,236/- along with the interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from 01.07.2013 till the realization of the consideration amount which has been paid to the Opposite parties/respondents by the complainants; b) Damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-for mental agony caused to the Complainants. c) Pay Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of legal notice and follow up litigation; d) Pass any other order(s) as the Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Matter was contested by the opposite party and evidence affidavits were filed by the respective parties and the learned State Commission allowed the complaint and, inter alia, directed the opposite side to refund CM(M) 1467/2025 2 the entire principal amount i.e. amount of Rs. 30,08,236/- with interest.

3. Feeling aggrieved, first appeal was filed by the opposite side before learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “Appellate Commission”) which was registered as First Appeal NO. 876/2022 and the learned Appellate Commission has also dismissed the appeal, after comprehensive evaluation of the matter.

4. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and after hearing arguments and on careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court does not find any reason to interfere as even otherwise there does not appear to be any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there could not have been direction to refund the principal amount of Rs. 30,08,236/- as the complainants had paid Rs. 23,08,236/only. It is contended that aforesaid aspect has not been taken care of by the learned State Commission, as well as, by learned Appellate Commission.

6. This is, however, a question of fact which should not be permitted to be raised in a petition filed under 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when there is concurrent finding by the foras below.

7. In Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd. v. Ibrat Faizan: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 944, this Court also observed as under:- “13. Needless to say, any party that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution subjects itself to the rigour of the provision. There can be no gainsaying the position, correctly urged by Mr Pal, that the jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227, is not appellate but merely supervisory. The parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised stand crystallised in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC CM(M) 1467/2025 3 97], Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel [Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181: (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 424] and Puri Investments v. Young Friends & Co. [Puri Investments v. Young Friends & Co., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283]…”

8. In Garment Craft (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, re-weigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. It observed that supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported and, thus, High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the fora below. In Estralla Rubber (supra), it is observed that High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions and that exercise of power under Article 227 and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It also held that it was well-settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.

9. This Court, while exercising supervisory powers, cannot be asked to appraise and re-weigh the evidence. In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court, generally speaking, interferes where there is patent error of law which goes to the root of the decision or any apparent illegality or perversity or flagrant violation of principles of natural justice or complete lack of CM(M) 1467/2025 4 jurisdiction and usurpation of powers by the concerned courts/tribunals. The Supervisory Court is not required to reassess or re-analyse the evidence, that too, in context of mere calculation.

10. Moreover, perusal of the order passed by learned State Commission would divulge that the learned State Commission clearly recorded that payment to the extent of Rs. 30,08,236/- had been made by the complainants to the opposite party which was evident from the receipts attached with the complaint. The mere stand of the petitioners before the learned State Commission was to the effect that there was no deficiency of service, which was negated. Complaint contains comprehensive details regarding payments made and receipts issued and the opposite party should have led adequate evidence to rebut the same before the learned State Commission. Such aspect is not required to be gone into in a petition like this where the supervisory court can interject only where there is clear illegality or perversity in the findings.

11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason, much less a compelling one, to interfere.

12. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed in limine.

13. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

JUDGE AUGUST 7, 2025/dr/shs