ORDER

08.11.2024

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the application filed by complainant for review of order dated 31.07.2024.
2. It is stated in the present application that this Commission failed to consider the fact that the cause of action also arose on 30.01.2023 when the applicant approached the OP when no communication was made from the OP to the applicant and the applicant visited the office of the OP in Delhi and there the complainant came to know that the OP send a letter to the applicant on a wrong address i.e. 9-3/37 sector 11 Rohini Delhi 110085 instead of G-3/37 Sector 11 Rohini Delhi 110085 therefore the letter was never received to the complainant and when the complainant inquired from the OP office there the complainant got to know only on 30.01.2023 that the complainants insurances could not be passed and it was mentioned that we regret to inform you that the subject claim is not tenable under the policy and we are filing the person as no claim.
3. It is stated that this Commission failed to consider the fact that the cause of action also arose on 02.02.2023 and 17.10.2023 when the complainant served the legal notice to the OP.
4. It is stated tha the complainant got knowledge of repudiation of claim finally on dated 30.01.2023as such the limitations should be started on the date of knowledge when finally OP informed the complainant on 30.01.2023 considering the date of knowledge on dated 30.01.2023 the complaint is within the period of limitation.
5. It is, therefore, applicant has prayed that this Commission review the order dated 31.07.2024 and consider the cause of action that arose on 30.01.2023, 02.05.2023 and 17.10.2023
6. We have heard Sh. Sanjeev Solanki Ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record available before us.
7. The present application has been filed u/s 40 of C.P. Act, 2019 which reads as under:-

Section 40: Review by District Commission in certain cases:-

“The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order”.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 laid down the procedure before the District Commission from section 34 to 39. As per section 38 (9) (a to f) provides powers same as vested in a Civil Court under the code of civil procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the falling matters namely :-

1. The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;
2. Requiring the discovery and production of any document or other material object as evidence;
3. Receiving of evidence on affidavits;
4. The requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
5. Issuing of commissions for the examination of any witness, or document; and
6. Any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.

8.  Upon reviewing the allegations set forth in the complainant’s application, it is evident that the applicant is seeking the restoration of the original complaint, which was dismissed on the grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of two years. The applicant asserts that the cause of action arose on the following dates: 30th January 2023, 2nd May 2023, and 17th October 2023.
9. In accordance with Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the power of review is restricted to the correction of errors that are apparent on the face of the record. Such power does not extend to allowing the review to function as an appellate body, nor does it grant the authority to revisit the final order and adopt a position contrary to that previously taken in the earlier decision.
10. Since the presence of an error apparent on the face of the record is a sine qua non for the maintainability of an application under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the present application is neither maintainable under the law nor supported by the facts of the case.
11. In light of the foregoing statutory provisions, observations, and discussions, we find that the applicant/complainant has failed to identify any error apparent on the face of the record in the present application. Consequently, as the application is not maintainable under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on 08.11.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                        RAJESH

PRESIDENT                                                               MEMBER