Delhi

North

RA/4/2022

ARJUN SINGH ASWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HIMALAYA MANUFACTURING SALES COMAPNY - Opp.Party(s)

23 Dec 2022

ORDER

Review Application No. 4 of 2022

IN

Consumer Complaint No. 130/2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Arjun Singh Aswal,

S/O Sh. Shyam Singh Aswal

R/O D-103, Gali No.9,

Gamri Extension, Bhajan Pura,

Delhi-110053                                                       ...                Complainant

VS

M/s Himalaya Manufacturing Sales Company,

3632, Netaji Subhash Palace,

Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.                           …      Opposite Party No.1

 

Director

M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.,

Godrej Bhawan, Okhla,

New Delhi-110065.                                              …      Opposite Party No.2

 

ORDER

23/12/2022

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

By way of our order dated 30/09/2022, we have finally disposed of the CC No. 130/2017 and passed following directions:

1. OP-2 is directed to refund the invoice value i.e. Rs. 2,250/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Only) to the Complainant within the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
2.  OP-2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2750/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order as compensation to the Complainant.

OP-2 may recover the above amount from OP-1 on pro-rata basis, if so advised.

Not satisfied with the relief so granted in his favour, the Complainant has filed this review petition and has sought enhancement of compensation so granted to the Complainant. We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and have also perused the record.

Under section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission is having power to review its own orders only on the ground if there is any error apparent on the face of record. In the case in hand, there is no apparent error on the face of record. Granting the relief is the discretion of the Commission and the Complainant cannot, as a matter of right, claim higher compensation that already granted by the Commission. Further, it is a settled law that the Complainant filed under Consumer Protection Act, is meant for saving consumer from being exploited and it is not meant for windfall or making purchaser millionaire overnight. Consumer Protection Act is welfare legislation and is not meant to be a tool to wrong gains. In our opinion, prayer for high compensation and filing a review application only for such purpose is misuse of the Act and should be discouraged. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. Vodafone East Limited [FA 847/2017 decided on 05.10.2018].

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that our order dated 30.09.2022 does not warrant any review since there is no apparent error in the face of record in the said order. As a result, the review application filed by the Complainant is dismissed.

Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.