APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  12^th FEBRUARY 2018

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.05.2010, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Miscellaneous Application No. 80/09 in Appeal No. 266/2009 before that Commission.  The said appeal filed by the respondents/opposite parties (OPs) against the order dated 29.09.2008, passed by the District Forum Bareilly in consumer complaint No. 225/2007, filed by the present petitioner was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2009 of the State Commission, but vide impugned order dated 03.05.2010 in Misc. Application No. 80/09, the State Commission decided to recall their order dated 19.08.2009.

2.       The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum Bareilly, saying that the respondent/OP Kotak Mahindra Bank, repossessed the truck, bearing registration no. UP21N 1832, belonging to the complainant on the plea that the complainant had failed to pay the instalments of loans taken by the complainant from the respondent/OP Bank.  The said complaint was decided by the District Form vide order dated 29.09.2008, vide which, they directed the OP Bank to return the said vehicle to the complainant, or in the alternative, to pay him a sum of ₹4,04,000/- within one month of the order.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the respondent/OP financer challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  Vide order dated 19.08.2009 of the State Commission, the said appeal was decided in the absence of the respondent/OP/appellant and it was ordered to be dismissed.  The respondent/OP filed a miscellaneous application no. 80/2009, seeking restoration of the appeal after recall of order dated 19.08.2009.  Vide impugned order dated 03.05.2010, the State Commission decided to set aside their own order dated 19.08.2009 and restored the appeal of the respondent/OP to its original number.  It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant, pleading that the State Commission had no authority in law to review their own order and restore the appeal. 

3.       During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the State Commission had no powers to reverse their own order dated 19.08.2009. It was open to the respondent/OP to have challenged the order dated 19.08.2009, by way of a revision petition etc. before this Commission.

4.       In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP stated that the order dated 19.08.2009 had been passed by the State Commission, having been misled by the action of the petitioner/complainant.  The impugned order had, therefore, been rightly passed by the State Commission, and the same should be upheld. 

5.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

6.       It is made out from the material available on record that appeal No. 266/2009 filed by the respondent/OP against the order dated 29.09.2008, passed by the District Forum Bareilly, was dismissed vide order passed by the State Commission on 19.08.2009 in the absence of the respondent/appellant.  The respondent/appellant have taken the plea that the petitioner/complainant had misled the State Commission by saying that they had duly informed the respondent/appellant about the hearing of the case on 19.08.2009.  Be that as it may, it is to be seen whether the State Commission was empowered in law to review their own order 19.08.2009 and set aside the same and fix the appeal for hearing on merits.  The issue has been discussed in an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr.” [2011 (9) SCC 541]” and it was held that under section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the State Commission or District Forum were not vested with the powers to review their own orders.  The powers to review were vested only in the National Commission as laid down in section 22A of the Act. In the light of these facts, we have no reason to differ with the plea taken by the petitioner that the impugned order does not withstand the scrutiny of law and the State Commission did not have any right to pass such an order.  It was open for the respondent/OP to file a revision petition before this Commission, if they were aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2009.  Under the circumstances, we have no alternative, but to set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and we order accordingly.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the respondent/OP to challenge the order dated 19.08.2009 by way of revision petition, if any, before this Commission within a period of 90 days of passing of this order.  There shall be no order as to costs.