D.O.F:25/03/2022
D.O.O:30/06/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
RA- 02/2022 in CC.No.161/2019
Dated this, the 30th day of June 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The Secretary
Kasaragod Rural Development Society : Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party
Kolichal, P.O Kolichal
Kasaragod District.
(Adv: Sudhir.M)
And
Aboobacker aged 36 years
S/o. Hassainer
“Bismilla Manzil”
Kutyalam House, P.O Kodyamme – 671321 : Respondent/Complainant
Manjeshwara Taluk, Kasaragod District
(Adv: K. Rama Pattali)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The review petition is filed by Opposite Party on 25/03/2022. The petitioner‘s prayer is to review the order dated 28/01/2022. The grounds raised are that complainant is not a consumer and no separate order is passed in IA 17/2022 and therefore mistake apparent on the face of record and thus review is sought.
Per Contra, the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by way of review. Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 has provided the District Commission with the power to review any order, in certain instances like error apparent on the face of the record either Sumo moto or on application filed by the parties within 30 days of said order.
We have perused the review petition and records considered the objections raised but could not point out any mistake apparent on the face of the record of the order and are convinced that the order of which review has been sought does not suffer from any error apparent warranty its re-consideration.
The grounds raised in the petition do not make out any error apparent on the record to justify is interference.
Thus the review petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
