Dtd.02.07.2024                                     RA/28 & 29/2024

COMMON ORDER

         BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. These Review Applications are filed U/s.50 of CPA, 2019 by the Petitioners/OPs.1 to 3 to review the order dtd.19.09.2022 passed by this Commission in CC/77 & 78/2018.  

2. These two matters are set to hear on admission. The Commission examined grounds of review and papers submitted along with petitions. We also heard learned counsels. Now the point that arise for consideration would be whether the order under review could be reviewed for the grounds set out in the review petitions ?

3. The Commission got the original file in CC/77 & 78/2018, where we could see Complainants.1 & 2 have raised consumer complaint on 22.02.2018 through their advocate and the Commission ordered to admit the complaint, issued notice against OPs.1 to 3. However notice issued against OPs.1 to 3 being returned without service. Thereafter ordered to re issue notice against OPs to the new address, which also came to be returned being un-served and once again on 19.11.2019 ordered to reissue notice against Ops to yet another new address, which also came to be returned being un-served. In such circumstances, with no alternative Complainants have taken notice of their complaint on OPs.1 to 3 U/o 5 Rule 20 R/w Sec.151 of CPC, for substituted service of notice by way of Paper Publication. Accordingly the said notice is notified in a daily news paper “Hosa Digantha” dtd.10.04.2021. Let us perused the paper notification taken by Complainants on OPs.1 to  3 on as many as three addresses, yet they failed to participate in the complaint proceedings, to assist the Commission to decide the complaint raised by Complainants.1 & 2. It is to be noted herein that, in agreement to sell and agreement to build, what they have stated about their address also could be found from postal records/notices as well as paper notification. Though Complainants are from Uttara Pradesh, facts remain OP’s office remains within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru city, which could found from the Paper Publication notice, we could also see the address of OPs at Malleshwaram and Sadashivanagara, Bengaluru. It is therefore, contention that, no notice is duly served could not be acceptable, since the Commission held service of notice by way of Paper Publication is sufficient service and they are declared as exparte on 30.11.2021.

4. Further to be noted herein that the order passed in CC/77 & 78/2018 dtd.19.09.2022, whereas these review applications are filed on 08.04.2024 i.e. 537 days after the said order since Sec.50 of CPA 2019 provides for “power to review any of the order passed by the Commission if there is an error apparent on the face of the record within 30 days of such order.” In so far as limitation as to filing of review application is concerned is 30 days does mean 30 days and the Commission cannot exercise to condone delay by invoking Sec.69 of 2019. In such circumstances, by dispense with issuance of these review applications on Respondents/Complainants to avoid delay and expenses to be incurred. Hence, we proceed to dismiss both applications with no order as to cost.

5. This Review order is directed to be part and parcel of the main order dtd.19.09.2022 passed in CC/77 & 78/2018 by this Commission has to be enclosed to the said main original order.

6. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

         Lady Member                            Judicial Member            

*NS*