27-08-2014: This is the restoration application for recall of the order dated 17.10.2013, whereby the appeal was dismissed in default of the appellant (applicant herein).

The restoration application has been preferred with a delay of 8 months’ and 27 days’.

This Commission on 03.04.2013 as well as 05.07.2013, took a serious note of this aspect that the appellant or his counsel had not been appearing before this Commission for the last several dates and this Commission passed an order that in case the appellant or his counsel does not appear on the next date fixed, then the matter shall be proceeded in accordance with law. On 17.10.2013, the matter was called out repeatedly, but neither the appellant, nor his counsel appeared and hence the appeal was dismissed in default of the appellant.

In the delay condonation application, it has been mentioned that the delay in moving the restoration application be condoned on account of the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application.

Having considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, we do not find any sufficient cause or reason to condone such an inordinate delay of 8 months’ and 27 days’ in filing the restoration application. We have also considered the restoration application on merits.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before us that in view of the provisions of order 9 Rule 9 CPC, this Commission has power to recall the order.

We do not agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, for the reason that the Hon’ble National Commission in its decision rendered in the case of Nitin Mehta and others Vs. Prashant Kumar Vijay Kumar Jain; II (2012)  CPJ 255 (NC), has held that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recall or review of any order passed by the State Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission in another decision given in the date case of B. Srinivas Rao Vs. Tafe Access Ltd. and another; IV (2011) CPJ 666 (NC), has observed that there is no comparable provision under Section 17 of the Act defining jurisdiction of the State Commission to recall or review the order passed by it. The Hon’ble National Commission has further held in the aforesaid judgment that the action of the appellant in seeking restoration of appeal by filing miscellaneous application before State Commission which had already dismissed appeal for non-prosecution, was misconceived. We accordingly do not find any merit in the restoration.

In view of above, the restoration application is dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by time as well as on merits.