Order

A Review Application under Section 50 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been submitted on behalf of the applicant – appellant alleging that the impugned order was passed on dated 07.07.2022 when he moved an adjournment application and no one was present on behalf of the applicant – appellant in the Commission. In the aforesaid circumstances, the dismissal order was passed on the date 23.09.2022, hence the review application be heard and decided on merits.

It is further stated in the application that the appeal No. 169 of 2018 styled as Punjab National Bank vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma was fixed on 23.09.2022; the learned counsel for the applicant – appellant attended the Bench-I and after arguing the matter in appeal, he was apprised that the appeal No. 169 of 2018 was transferred to Bench-II of State Consumer Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, then learned counsel for the applicant – appellant reached to Bench – II and came to know that the appeal has been dismissed due to not taking steps, but it is evident from the perusal of the order sheet of the appeal dated 07.07.2022, the applicant – appellant moved an adjournment application which was allowed and the date was fixed as 23.09.2022 with the direction to take steps for service of notice upon respondent, perhaps not considering the fact that the respondent moved the adjournment application by post on dated 21.01.2019 and 18.01.2019 and the appeal was adjourned on the application of adjournment.  Hence, there was no need to take steps; several dates were fixed in the appeal such as 02.01.2019, 18.03.2019, 06.12.2019, 27.02.2020, 25.11.2020, 03.03.2021, 09.12.2021, 22.02.2022, 22.04.2022 and the applicant – appellant was not at fault since the only respondent was served and moreover the order was passed on dated 07.07.2022 when he moved an adjournment application and no one was present on behalf of the applicant – appellant before the Commission. 

So in such circumstances, in the interest of justice the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 be recalled and it be heard and decided on merit.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant – appellant on admission stage. The main legal issue for consideration before us is whether the review application is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It is pertinent to mention that the applicant – appellant has moved review application under Section 50 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, whereas the appeal bears No. 169 of 2018 styled as Punjab National Bank vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force on dated 04.04.2021 whereas the appeal bearing No. 169 of 2018 was filed much before, three years approximately.

We have also perused the record of the appeal No. 169 of 2018.  The memo of appeal (paper No. 4) has revealed that the appeal was preferred under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereas the Review Application has been submitted under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In our view, if the appeal was filed under the old Act, 1986, then the Review Application must be filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, not under the new Act, 2019. 

Learned counsel has attracted our attention to the following case law:

1. Review Application No. 54 of 2021, The Manager, K.M.G. General Hospital Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., decided on 10.03.2022 by the State Consumer Commission, Gujrat State, Ahmedabad
2. Review Application No. 15 of 2021, Dilip K. Dhanola vs. Vihang Kanaiyalal Shah and Anr., decided on 10.05.2021 by the State Consumer Commission, Gujrat State, AhmedabadIn the case of The Manager, K.M.G. General Hospital Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (supra) the review application was dismissed.

In the case of Dilip K. Dhanola vs. Vihang Kanaiyalal Shah and Anr. (supra) it is held that oral order dated 10.03.2021 of this Commission is required to be rectified and as per Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it can be done by the Commission on its own motion. This is a minor correction in the oral order and therefore, it does not affect the merit of the oral order of CMA 352/2020 as it was already passed after considering written submission of opponent No. 01, E- R.I. Desai R.A. 15/21 mail dated 26.02.2020 and reasons of delay given in delay condonation application and hence the final order is passed. Review application is hereby dismissed.

In both the cited cases review application was dismissed. It is here pertinent to mention that appeal No. 169 of 2018 was filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is no provision in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to review the impugned order.

Apart from it, vide impugned order, the appeal was dismissed and order for setting aside the dismissal order is not a correction. Hence, on such account, review application is not maintainable. 

We have also perused the following case law:

1. Ms. Prachi Mathur Vs. M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited, Revision Petition No. 6 of 2020
2. Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2007, Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another decided on 19.08.2011.

In the case of Ms. Prachi Mathur (supra) it is held by the Commission that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is prospective in nature. Thus, the cases pending in accordance with 1986 Act will be continued to be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others (supra) it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “In view of the legal position, in Civil Appeal No.4307 of 2007, the findings of the National Commission are set aside as far as it has held that the State Commission can review its own orders. After the amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22A in the Act in the year 2002 by which the power of review or recall has vested with the National Commission only. However, we agree with the findings of the National Commission holding that the Complaint No.473 of 1999 be restored to its original number for hearing in accordance with law.”

Thus, according to the discussion hereinbefore held the appeal No. 169 of 2018 was filed before the enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per law, the proceedings of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are prospective in nature, thus, the cases pending in accordance with 1986 Act will be continued to be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be applicable.

In the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there is no such provision empowering the State Commission to review its order

Accordingly, we are of the view that the Review Application is not maintainable in law.  Accordingly, we hold that the Review Application is liable to be dismissed. Review Application is summarily dismissed at the stage of admission.