PER SMT. KALYANI S.KAPSE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Review applicant Mr Sadiq Qureshi has filed the present review application against the Respondent (Bank) Under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 to review the order dated 6/6/2024 passed in Complaint case No. CC/56/2020 by this Commission.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-
         Complainant Mr Sadiq Qureshi was an employee of the Corporation Bank and subsequently promoted as Assistant Manager. By virtue of his promotion he had submitted a proposal for taking housing loan for which he was eligible in respect of flat No. 6 Allway flat scheme at bhopal. As he has sought permission to sale his flat No. 707 of Utkarsh Nirman at Sadar Nagpur and had also applied for substitution of security seeking the loan in respect of flat No. 6 Allway flat scheme at  Bhopal. But the opponent namely the Corporation Bank has denied the rest of the contentions.
 

3. The complainant has come with the specific case that opponent Corporation Bank has permitted substitution of security on 26/11/1997 as per scheme and amount of Rs. 4,65,010/- was kept wrongly in inoperative saving bank account No. 2/000065.

          The complement has also contended that the opponent Bank has committed deficiency in service by blocking and withholding funds in his inoperative account and by not giving interest on the amount for more than 22 years.

4. After considering the oral arguments and documents placed on record the complaint was partly allowed. It was declared that the opponent Bank has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and opponent Corporation Bank is directed to pay the sum of  Rs.4,,65,010/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per Annum from 17/7/1998 to 25/02/2020 to the complaint.

5. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the present review application before this Commission for the relief stated Supra.
The present review petition has been filed on 17/7/2024 on following grounds.
i. The state Commission passed the impugned order overlooking the basic facts and circumstances of the case and it appears that the commission read the complaint in bits and pieces and passed the impugned  order.

ii. The state Commission failed to observe the applicability of law of prudence in case of complaint.

iii. Commission granted the interest at 12% will not be a proper justice after period of 22 years where the bank has charged 16.25% interest with OD interest and penel interest.

iv. No discussion has been done by this Commission about conduct of opposite party and concealment of facts.

v. The Complaint was partly allowed, without considering the case law on record.

vi. Amendment application decided in a hasty manner prior to one day of passing judgement.

6. Applicant also filed an application on 12/11/2024 for correction in the order and stated that the respondent filed appeal before Hon’ble National Commission and the case was listed before the Hon’ble National Commission on 25/11/2024 and requested the commission to correct the amount of Rs.22,71,680/- as per the documents on record.
 

7. Reply file by the respondent Bank to the review petition file by the applicant/ complainant along with the citation. Respondent raised preliminary objection that the prayer of the applicant in the petition does not fall within the purview of the session 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Instead the prayers of the applicant fall within the purview of section 51 and can only be prayed by way of an appeal before The Hon’ble National Commission, Delhi. 

8.         Respondent (Bank) filed citation/judgement passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Ahmedabad, Gujarat in Review application No.54/2021 in “The Manager, KMG General Hospital Nr.Saliyavadi Darwaja, At & Post: Balasinor, Kheda Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vadodara.

             As per section 50 of the C.P.Act, 2019 the State Commission have power to review any order on only one ground i.e. if there is an error apparent on the face of record. Commission further held that in Review jurisdiction mere disagreement that the view of the judgement cannot be the ground for invoking the same and the view of the judgement cannot be the ground for invoking the same and the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise.

9.    On 18/11/2024, Review applicant has filed written notes of arguments and we have heard both the parties finally and reserved the matter for order on 22/11/2024.

          We have carefully gone through the impugned order and Review Application. We are of the view that following points fall under the purview of limited jurisdiction of Review U/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.  

(i) The basic technical error in the order dated 06/06/2024 on page No.24 of the order is, it is mentioned the amount of Rs.4,64,010/- and in the next para i.e. in the operative order the amount is of Rs.4,65,010/-. It is rectified as Rs.4,65,010/- (Commission on its own motion has carried out this rectification though is not claimed in the Review Petition)

                   The applicant, in his Review application, has mentioned following apparent Errors and technical mistakes in our order dated 06/06/2024.

(ii) on page no. 2 of the R.A, there is  an error which itself contradicts the date & the year on page  no. 07 of the order the block period where the interest has not been given is 22 years, where on page no. 11 it is mention that the interest has not been given for 20 year and again there is error on page no.14.  it is rectified as 22 year.

(iii) And the error in the date till the interest has to be given ( page no. 15) is 29/02/2020 & again it contradicts to the final order in page no. 15(iii) ie. 25/02/2020. It is rectified as 25/02/2020.

10. REASONS:

Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act,2019 which reads as follows:

Section 50 – 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 on its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.

 According to the above provision, this commission has power to review its own order if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In this regard, The Hon’ble Supreme court in Kamlesh Verma v/s Mayawati and other reported in 2013(4) CT 882 has held that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of provisions.

11. “ In Review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgement cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction”

12. In Lilly Thomas v/s Union of India & others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650,the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute views.

The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:-

“The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review

13. From the above observation of Hon’ble Apex court, it is Crystal clear that review petition cannot be an appeal remedy as the scope of review is very limited.

14.             In view of the above discussion in depth, in the opinion of this Commission Review Application filed by the applicant cannot be considered in TOTO but needs to rectify partly and rest of the grounds raised in the review application are matter of appeal.

           Hence in view of the necessary corrections we pass the following order.

ORDER

I.    Present Review Application No.RA/24/4 is hereby partly allowed.

ii.  Order dated 06/06/2024 passed in Complaint Case No.CC/20/56 is hereby confirmed after making necessary corrections in the errors apparent on the face of record.

iii) The amount of Rs.4,64,010/- mentioned in page No. 24 is rectified as Rs. 4,65,010/-.

iv) On page No.2 of the Review Application, Block Period mentioned is 20 years, it is rectified as 22 years.

vi) The date till the interest has to be given is 29/02/2020. It is rectified as 25/02/2020.

vii) No order as to cost.

viii) Copy be supplied to both the parties free of cost.