Dated:03.04.2024

C O M M O N   O R D E R

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

1. These are the Review Petitions filed U/s 50 of CPA, 2019 to review the order dated 02.07.2022 passed by this Commission in Appeal Nos.760 and 763 of 2014.

2. These Review Petitions are received on 29.04.2023, through advocate, contending that the plots in question were booked by complainant, was with a commercial motive to resale on appreciated value, was not considered by the Commission while passing the order dated 02.07.2022.  Further contending that the complainant is residing in her own residence and her sole motive to book plots was to earn some good profits and not for her shelter.  The complainant had made investment, is not a Consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d) of CPA, 1986.

3. Admittedly, complainant in the respective complaints, raised Consumer Complaint during 2014 under the provisions of CPA, 1986.  The Review Petitioner herein, aggrieved by the order dated 23.05.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.38, 40, 41 and 39 of 2014 on the file of DCDRF, Dharwad, preferred Appeal Nos.761 to 763 of 2014 on 13.06.2014 and these appeals are decided on 02.07.2022 by this Commission and these Review Petitions are filed on 29.04.2023, almost 10 months after deciding the appeals. The Review Petitioner sought in these petitions to review   the orders U/s 50 of CPA, 2019.

4. Let us come to examine what Sec.50 of CPA, 2019 provides for to review any of the order passed by State Commission, if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, on an application made by any of the parties within 30 days of such order.  It is therefore, the Review Petitions filed in this case beyond 30 days from the date of 02.07.2022, could be said not maintainable, even if held Sec.50 of CPA, 2019 shall applies to the case filed during 2014 and the appeals decided during 2022.  It is therefore, Commission did not find any scope to review the order dated 02.07.2022 passed in Appeal Nos.760 and 763 of 2014. We have also to observe herein nothing is placed on record to show that the complainant with an intention to generate profits had booked flats and it is found from the papers the review petitioner withheld the money which was paid by complainant. In such view of the matter, we ordered to dismiss the Review Petition Nos.51 and 52 of 2023 with no order as to costs.

5. These review orders passed in Appeal Nos.760 and 763 of 2014 are directed to be the part and parcel of the order dated 02.07.2022 passed by this Commission has to be enclosed to the main original order.

6. The Copy of these orders is directed to be notified not only to the parties but to the District Commission for reference.

        Lady Member                                  Judicial Member             

*GGH*