No one appears on behalf of respondent No.2 even on the second call. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.2 has been duly served with the dasti notice . He has tendered the service report as well as -2- affidavit confirming the service of respondent No.2, which are taken on record. Since no one has turned up on behalf of respondent No.2, he is proceeded ex-parte. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 17.4.2012 whereby the State Commission allowed MA No.613/2011 filed by respondent No.2 (M/s Sai Automobiles) seeking rectification of its order dated 26.8.2011 passed in first appeal No.294/2009. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant/respondent No.1 Gangu Ram filed a consumer complaint against M/s Sai Automobiles (respondent No.2 herein) and M/s Indusind Bank Ltd. (petitioner herein) alleging deficiency in service in respect of illegal possession of the vehicle purchased from M/s Sai Automobiles and financed by the petitioner Bank. 4. The consumer complaint was disposed of with following directions: “Nonetheless, in interest of justice, it is thought fit that the complainant shall in case some default in the payment of some loan installments by him to the OP No.2 has occurred, then, he shall furnish an undertaking to the OP No.2 to defray such outstanding financial liabilities within a period of three months. The undertaking shall also contain a recital that he shall not commit default in the payment of any further outstanding loan installments. On such undertaking being furnished by the complainant to the OP No.2 the later shall release the vehicle after the -3- entire arrears of loan installments in compliance with the undertaking is defrayed by the OP to it. With these directions, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after completion be consigned to record room.” 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the complainant Ganga Ram preferred first appeal No.294/2009 before the State Commission. The State Commission by its order dated 26.8.2011 allowed the appeal. Operative portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced thus: - “In view of the aforesaid decision and facts and circumstances of the case, order of the Forum below passed in Consumer Complaint No.201/2007 dated 22.7.2009 is set aside and consequently appeal is partly accepted and respondent No.1 is held liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. It is further directed that this amount be deposited within 45 days from the date of this order failing which appellant will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.” 6. M/s Sai Automobiles (respondent No.2) being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission filed an application MA/613/2011 seeking rectification of the order dated 26.8.2011. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 17.4.2012 allowed the application and rectified its order dated 26.8.2011 by substituting the word “respondent No.2” in place of “respondent No.1” as the -4- party liable to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner Bank who was respondent No.2 before the State Commission has filed this revision petition. 7. Respondent No.2 M/s Sai Automobiles who was respondent No.1 before the State Commission has failed to put in appearance despite of service of notice of revision petition. As such he has been proceeded ex-parte. 8. Learned Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission dated 17.4.2012 is not sustainable for the reason that it is in the nature of review of its earlier order dated 26.8.2011. By this order the State Commission has totally changed the complexion of its order by shifting the responsibility to pay the compensation from respondent No.2 Sai Automobiles upon the petitioner Bank. It is further contended that the rectification order dated 17.4.2012 has been passed by the State Commission on the assumption that no relief has was claimed by the respondent/complainant against M/s Sai Automobiles described as respondent No.1 in the memo of appeal filed in the State Commission, which is against the record. Thus, learned counsel has urged us that the revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 17.4.2012 rectifying the earlier order dated 26.8.2011 be set aside. -5- 9. Learned Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 submits that both the respondents are guilty of deficiency in service and they should share the burden of compensation. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Issue relating to the powers of the State Commission to review its own order came before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 541 wherein the Apex Court held as under: - “On a careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and the power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the statute cannot be exercised. The legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex parte orders. Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court. The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers.” 11. From the above, it is clear that the State Commission does not possess the power to review its own order. -6- 12. In the light of the above-noted proposition of law, when we compare the original order of the State Commission dated 26.8.2011 with the impugned order of the State Commission dated 17.42012 it is obvious that the subsequent order is in the nature of the review of the earlier order because it has totally changed the complexion of the relief granted to the complainant inasmuch as that initially respondent No.1 Sai Automobiles was held liable to pay the compensation to the complainant whereas by subsequent order the liability has been shifted from Sai Automobiles to the petitioner Bank. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained. 13. Otherwise also, the impugned order of the State Commission dated 17.4.2012 is based upon the incorrect appreciation of fact. The State Commission in the impugned order has observed that undisputedly no relief was claimed by the complainant against respondent No.1 Sai Automobiles which means that direction ordering respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the complainant is a typographical error and it should have been the direction against the respondent No.2. This observation of the State Commission is against the record. Relevant prayer clause of the complaint is reproduced as under: - “(i) direct the respondent No.1 to hand over the possession of the vehicle No.HP-03B-591(Temp/Trax) to the complainant which has been illegally impounded by him on 7.5.2007 from his workshop -7- when it was taken for repair in the presence of Sh. B.S. Goyal of Kharapathar (Shimla Dist.) (ii) direct the respondents to pay Rs.2000/- per day to the complainant from 8.5.2007 to 30.6.2007 for the loss sustained by him for this period as there is fruit and vegetable season going on which the complainant used to carry for general public daily and has been deprived of financial assistance he used to get for support of his family (this amount may enhance till handing over the vehicle to complainant by the respondents) (iii) the respondents may be saddled with cost of this unnecessary litigation, besides compensation for mental harassment, mental torture and injury caused to the complainant for the wrong and illegal action by respondents including the penal cost in the interest of law and justice.” 14. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the complainant had sought direction against respondent No.1 (M/s Sai Automobiles) to handover the possession of the vehicle to him and he had also sought the compensation from both the respondents. In view of the aforesaid serious error of fact, the impugned order of the State Commission modifying the earlier order cannot be sustained. 15. In view of the discussion above, it is evident that the impugned order dated 17.4.2012 was passed by the State Commission without jurisdiction and on wrong appreciation of fact. Revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission dated 17.4.2012 is set aside. It is made -8- clear that the complainant shall be entitled to recover the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission dated 26.8.2011 from the respondent M/s Sai Automobiles. 16. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. | 
