Chandigarh

StateCommission

MA/581/2024

M/S INNOVATIVE HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMARJIT SINGH WALIA - Opp.Party(s)

Harjeet Singh Bedi Adv.

02 Sep 2024

ORDER

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.T., Chandigarh.

 

Miscellaneous Application No.581 of 2024

In

A/325/2023

 

M/s Innovative Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Vs

Amarjit Singh

 

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:         

 

Sh. Harjeet Singh Bedi, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent.

 

Dated:  02/09/2024

ORDER

 

PER  RAJESH  K . ARYA,  MEMBER

                   This application has been filed by the appellant for restoration of appeal bearing No.325 of 2023, which was dismissed By this Commission vide order dated 18.04.2024 for want of prosecution as the appellant failed to appear on the said date and on previous date also i.e. 08.04.2024. Restoration of appeal has been sought on the ground that the earlier Counsel for the appellant was engaged for the matter but lateron a new counsel was engaged by the appellant but inadvertently, there was some delay in communicating the handing over of the relevant case file and new Counsel was not able to appear before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. 18.04.2024.

2]                On the other hand, Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the prayer of the applicant/appellant seeking restoration of the appeal by stating that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which empowers this Commission to review or recall its order in absence of any error apparent on face of the record. He prays that the application be dismissed being not maintainable.

3]                We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully.

4]                It may be stated here that the explanation given by the Counsel for the appellant, in the application, for non-appearance on the date fixed is not well based           and unconvincing. Even otherwise, the scope of powers of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), particularly whether it can set aside its own order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution is very limited. Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short CPA 2019) confers upon the SCDRC the authority to hear appeals against orders passed by District Commissions. It further outlines the procedural aspects related to the filing of appeals, such as the time frame within which an appeal must be filed and the grounds on which an appeal can be entertained. However, it does not explicitly grant SCDRC the power to review or set aside its own orders including those dismissing appeals for want of prosecution. The provisions of Section 50 of CPA 2019 details the powers of the SCDRC, including the ability to issue interim orders, summon witnesses, and demand the production of documents. While these powers are comprehensive in nature, they are explicitly laid out within the Act, leaving little room for interpretation. Further Section 71 of CPA 2019 applies certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to proceedings before consumer forums, including the State Commission. Although the CPC allows for the review of orders under specific circumstances (e.g., Order IX Rule 13 permits the setting aside of ex parte decrees under certain conditions), these provisions do not automatically extend to the State Commission. The Act does not incorporate CPC provisions that would empower the State Commission to set aside its own orders, meaning that the State Commission is bound by the limitations expressly imposed by CPA 2019. It may also be stated here that in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another, 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 175, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the District Forums and the State Commission have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised. Thus, the State Commission cannot exercise powers beyond those explicitly conferred by the statute under which they operate. Any attempt to exercise powers not explicitly conferred by the statute would be ultra vires, meaning beyond their legal authority. SCDRC cannot revisit its own decisions once they have been finalized, except in cases of correcting minor errors. In this view of the matter, this Commission does not have the power to set aside its own order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution under CPA 2019. The statutory framework of the Act, coupled with consistent judicial interpretations, makes it clear that the SCDRC’s powers are limited to those explicitly provided within the Act. The doctrine of "functus officio" applies in this context, which means that once the SCDRC has passed an order, it becomes functus officio or without further authority and cannot alter or review the order, except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors or error apparent in the order. Thus, the available remedies to the appellant do not include requesting the State Commission to set aside order dated 18.04.2024. Instead, the appellant may avail its remedy available under the Act.

5]                For the reasons recorded above, this miscellaneous application stands dismissed being not maintainable with no order as to costs. However, liberty granted, as aforesaid. 

6]                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

02.09.2024.

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad