Order Date.02.11.2022
This application U/S 40 of C.P Act.2019 is presented with a prayer to review the order dt.19.08.2022 by cancelling the same as passed agaist the applicant in C.C No.49/2018 on the ground that Hon’ble Dist Commission has committed error by interpreting the relevant clause of C.P.Act 2019 wrongly also due to suppression of relevant facts by the complainant and ultimately passed the above order dt.19.08.2022 against the applicant /O.P Bank .
Learned counsel for the applicant /Bank submits that there are errors in finding of the commission and that the commission has wrongly interpret Section 2 (5)(v) of C.P Act. 2019 and erroneously held that, both the complainant & his wife are having same interest in this case.
It is further submitted that complainant has suppressed the fact of the closer of the loan account vide No.30764087571 and further suppressed the fact of civil suit No.116/2017 filed by the complainant got dismissed against the O.P Bank vide order No.11.03.2022 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division ,Dharmagarh .He further submitted that, due to transfer of the official during the relevant period of time the above facts could not be presented by the applicant/O.P Bank ultimately Hon,ble Commission has passed an order against the applicant.
Peruse the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of learned counsel for the applicant.
This commission has limited jurisdiction U/S 40 of C.P Act 2019 to review its own order which may read as follows:- “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”, as such authority under above section 40 of C.P Act 2019 can be invoked only in the specific circumstances where an error apparent on the face of the record and if such error is not show apparent and would need leading of evidence to establish the fact alleged then review of impugned order shall not be granted.
Here in this case, the learned counsel for the applicant raised a discovery of new and important evidence on a question of facts that , a civil suit No.116/2017 filed by the complainant is disposed of against the applicant /Bank vide order dt.11.03.2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dhrmagarh which could not be adduced when this impugned order was passed only due to transfer of officials during the relevant time .We are of our consider opinion that, these facts cannot be accepted without strict proof of the same .
Law is well settled that ,no application for review shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter for evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced by him when impugned order was passed or made without strict proof of such allegation .
The submission of the Learned counsel for the applicant that there is error in finding of the commission by wrongly interpreting section 2 (5)(v) of C.P Act 2019there in the original consumer complaint clearly show that ,the applicant has disputed the finding of the Commission while passing of the impugned order on merits .
Law is further settled that, a conclusion arrived at by the processer conscious reasoning cannot constitute an error of law apparent on the face of the order to be reviewed. It is further settle that a review cannot be granted on the mere ground that the decision arrive at is erroneous on merit.
Based on the above facts and settle principle of law it appears that there is not sufficient ground for a review of the order dt.19.08.2022 passed in C.C No. 49/2018 of this Commission. Hence, this review application is hereby rejected.
Pronounced in the open Commission today on 2nd November 2022 under the seal & signature of this Commission.
Free copy of this order be supplied to the applicant for his perusal.
Order accordingly.
Dictated & corrected by me .
President
I agree.
