BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.53/2021
Mr.K.S.Paniraj Jain,
S/o Chinnayya Hegde,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at House No.4, … Petitioner/s
“Vijaya” Manjunatha Pai Nagara,
Kabettu Karkala,
Udupi District – 574 104
(By Smt.M.R.Balakrishna & Associates, Advocate)
V/s
1. Chairman and Managing Director,
Universal Sampo General Insurance
Company Ltd, Registered office: 201-208
Opp: Infinity Mall, Link Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400058
… Respondent/s
2. Branch Manager,
Universal Sampo General Insurance
Company Ltd,
KVD Towers, No.713, 2nd Floor,
Above Barclays Finance,
Opp: 100 feet road, Old Madras Road,
Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 560 038
3. Branch Manager,
India Overseas Bank, … Respondent/s
Varanga, Karkala Taluk
ORDERS ON ADMISSION
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Petitioner/appellant in Appeal No.1534/2013 preferred this Review Application being aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2021 passed in the above appeal and for various reasons and prays to review the order dated 2.8.2021 and restore the said appeal in the interest of justice and equity and submits that, this Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that, the appellant has not appeared before this commission to submit the arguments in spite of sufficient opportunities given to the appellant. On 2-8-2021 this Commission has dismissed as the counsel for appellant did not address the arguments. Further submits that, the petitioner has got very good case on merits and the previous counsel did not appear before this Commission due to COVID related issues and for the fault of the counsel. The petitioner was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal till he received the certified copy of the said order. Moreover the dismissal of appeal was not made known to the petitioner by his previous counsel. The petitioner has very good case on merit. Hence, prayed to allow the review application and opportunity is given to the petitioner to address the arguments, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard advocate for review petitioner/appellant
3. On perusal of the order sheet, the appellant has filed this appeal way-back in the year 2013 i.e., on 5.10.2013. The appellant had not addressed his arguments even in spite of sufficient opportunities given to him and there is no merit fund in the Review application. Hence, review application fails.
4. On going through the Review Application filed under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and order passed by us, it is appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 hereunder;
“The State 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”.
5. We noticed here that the order passed by this Commission has no error either in law or any error apparent on the face of record as contemplated under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
6. As per the provisions of Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, if there is any error on law or error on the face of record, then only Review application can be filed, otherwise, if the appellant not satisfied with the order, he is at liberty to approach the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act by filing an appeal. Hence, we do not find any merits in the Review Application. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The Review Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Notify the order to the parties and place this order/records along with concerned appeal records.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
