Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/20/2024

CAPT KANWALJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

18 Dec 2024

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Addl. Bench]

==========

Review Application No. in Appeal No.172 of 2024	:	RA/20/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	10/12/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	18/12/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Capt. Kanwaljit Singh Ghuman                 

…. Applicant/Appellant

 

 

V E R S U S

 

 

Manager, HDFC Bank & Anr.

 

 

…… Non-Applicants/Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT

:

Capt. Kanwaljit Singh Ghuman, Applicant/Appellant in person.

 

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.         The instant review application has been filed by the Applicant/Appellant – Capt. Kanwaljit Singh Ghuman under the provisions of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking review of orders dated 23.10.2024 whereby this Commission had dismissed the appeal filed by the Applicant/Appellant being bereft of merit and accordingly uphold the order of the Ld. District Commission.

 

2.         We have heard the Applicant/Appellant and have also gone through the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection with his able assistance.

 

3.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant review application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

4.         The Applicant/Appellant argued with vehemence that there is error apparent on the face of the record, in as much as, the evidence of the Applicant/ Appellant, statement of Mr.Shukla and question of delay in reporting the transaction being an after though has all together been ignored while passing the order under review.  

 

5.         It may be stated here that each Consumer Commission has been empowered to review its own order under the provisions of Sections 40, 50 and 60 of the Act. The power under the Statute is highly limited as compared to the powers of civil court to review its own orders under the provisions of Section 114 read with order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is beneficial to refer following provisions of law: -

 

Section 50 of the Act:- "The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order."

 

6.         In the light of aforesaid provision, the prayer of the Applicant/Appellant to review order dated 23.10.2024 is misconstrued and misapplied inasmuch as Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers this Commission to review its order only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and we do not find any such apparent error on record. Therefore, this review application does not merit consideration.

 

7.         Per material available on record, the grounds taken by the Applicant/Appellant for reviewing the order lacks merit as the grounds now taken by means of instant review application have already been dealt with in detail by this Commission in orders under review. It needs to be emphasized here that such an error should be an error apparent on the face of the record and should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

 

8.         We are not oblivious of the fact that review would be permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason is made out. We are equally aware of the fact that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The review of the order would be permissible only if a material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

 

9.         It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.  In Lilly Thomas v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute views.    

 

10.         From the above observation of Hon'ble Apex Courts, it is crystal clear that the power of review cannot be equated with the power of appeal as the scope of review is very limited.  Besides this, the scope of review under the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is highly limited and only to the extent of “an error apparent on the face of record”.

 

11.         Whatever observed by this Commission in the orders dated 23.10.2024 is based upon the factual position on record. There is no any apparent error on record and there is no need to review same.

 

12.         For the reasons recorded above, this review application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

13.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

14.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

18^th Dec. 2024                                                           

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”