1. This miscellaneous application has been filed by the petitioner in revision petition No. 2739 of 2015 under Section 22 A read with Section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for setting aside the order dated 11th September 2018 passed by this Commission disposing the revision petition No. 2739 of 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and perused the record. The learned counsel stated that the order dated 11th September 2018 passed by this Commission is an ex- parte order and therefore, needs to be set aside under powers given to this Commission under Section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It was further stated by the learned counsel that the proxy Counsel was present on behalf of the main counsel who was injured in an accident and in the circumstances this Commission should have adjourned the matter. It was further argued that this Commission has powers to review its own order under Section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It was requested that the impugned order may be reviewed under Section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The learned counsel mentioned that his case is very strong on merits and he should be heard in the matter on merits. 3. I have considered carefully the arguments advanced by the learned counsel in respect of the miscellaneous application filed for review and setting aside of the order dated 11th September 2018 passed by this Commission. First of all, it is seen that the order dated 19.4.2018 records the following:- “Learned Proxy Counsel Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj states that the main counsel Mr. K. Singhal is busy in Supreme Court and therefore unable to attend the proceedings today. Adjournment is sought. Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to argue the matter on the next date otherwise the matter will be heard ex parte. List the matter on 11.9.2018.” 4. From the above it is clear that the petitioner was fully aware that if the matter was not argued, it will be heard ex-parte and therefore there was no irregularity if the matter was heard ex- parte on the date fixed as the counsel for the petitioner did not appear again. Obviously, petitioner cannot be allowed to get the disposal of the appeal pending before the State Commission held up by delaying the hearing in the revision petition. Moreover Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is equally applicable to the proceedings of the National Commission clearly estates that if the complainant or petitioner is not present, then the matter can be either dismissed or can be decided on merits. As the counsel for the respondent was present, the matter was heard and was decided. I find no illegality in such disposal of the revision petition and particularly when the petitioner was informed on the previous date that matter will be heard on the next date and if petitioner would not be present, the matter would be heard ex-parte. Moreover this Commission has taken a view that section 22A pf the Consumer Protection Act 1986 relates to power of this Commission in setting aside ex Parte orders only in complaint cases as held by this Commission in the matter of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Vs. Wing Commander Suren Yadav (Retd.), M.A. No.140 of 2018 in R.P. No.1048 of 1999, decided on 11.4.2018 (NC). It has been held that: “In my opinion, the use of the words “Opposite Party” and “Complainant “ in the aforesaid Section clearly indicate that this provision applies only to an original complaint instituted before this Commission and not to a revision petition or an appeal. If an ex parte order is passed in a consumer complaint instituted originally in this Commission, that can be set aside in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Commission u/s 22A of the Consumer Protection Act. therefore, the application would not be maintainable in respect of a final order passed in a revision petition instituted before this Commission.” 5. This Commission in another case Sri V.V. Ramanarsaiah and others vs. M/s. Abheestha Finance Company Ltd. and others, MA No.605/2016 & MA No.60-609 of 2016 in R.P. No.2138-2142 of 2009, decided on 30.1.2017 (NC), has held the same view and has also explained the reason behind taking this view as given below:- “5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and have gone through the record. Section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act reads as follows:- “22A. Power to set aside ex parte orders- Where an order is passed by the National Commission ex parte against the opposite party or a complainant, as the case may be, the aggrieved party may apply to the Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice.” 6. From the language of this Section and from the fact that it is coming after Section 22 where the applicability of the Sections 12,13 and 14 have been prescribed for National Commission as well, it seems that Section 22A is applicable mainly for complaint cases coming before the National Commission as the words used are ‘opposite party’ and the ‘complainant’. Such power has neither been given to the State Commission nor to the District Forum. Perhaps, this may be so because the orders passed by the District Forum or the State Commission are appealable within the Consumer Disputes Redressal agencies. However, the order passed by the National Commission is appealable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, I am of the view that Section 22A shall not be applicable to the final orders passed in revisions or appeals. Obviously, if any ex-parte order is passed within the pendency of the dispute even in revision petition or appeal, the same may be set aside if the party wants to join the proceedings before the final judgment is passed. 7. Moreover, the above view is also substantiated by Section 24 which deals with finality of orders, which reads as follows:- “24. Finality of orders- Every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final.” 8. No party informs that any appeal has been filed against order dated 22.09.2016 of this Commission. Hence, the order has also become final. In this situation, no question of recalling the order can arise.” 6. From the above examination, it is clearly brought out that application under section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not maintainable in the present case and the order passed on 11th September 2018 cannot be set aside on this ground. 7. Now coming to the application being treated under section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, it is seen that the review under this section is only limited to the error apparent on the face of record. I have perused the contents of the review application and examined the record. However, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for review of the order dated 11th September, 2018 passed by this Commission. 8. Based on the above discussion, I find that there is no force in the miscellaneous application filed under Section 22A read with Section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the same is accordingly dismissed. File be consigned to record room. | 
