CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Revision Petition No.634/2013
SH. SHIRISH JAIN
S/O SH. C.K. JAIN
R/O B-34, SECTOR-51,
NOIDA, U.P.201303
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S FIERRO IDEAS
A-280, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PART-1, NEW DELHI
- MRS. NILIMA MAHESHWARI
PARTNERS M/S FIERRO IDEAS
A-280, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PART-1, NEW DELHI
- MR. ANURAG MAHESHWARI
PARTNERS M/S FIERRO IDEAS
A-280, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PART-1, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 16.02.2016
O R D E R
Complainant filed the complaint bearing No.496/2010 before this Forum regarding deficiency of service on the part of OPs in executing the contract awarded to OPs on 10.04.2008 for installation of stainless steel railings etc. That complaint was disposed by this Forum vide order dated 05.11.13. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-
“To repeat, the respondents did not care to file a written statement to controvert the case of the complainant and were proceeded against ex parte and in our considered view the evidence brought on file by the complainant is sufficient to prove deficiency in service on their part. There was some delay on the part of the respondents and the works carried out by them were not according to the agreed specifications. Having regard to the material on record we dispose of the complaint with a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant and another Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.”
Now this review application has been moved by the complainant stating therein that “it appears that inadvertently in the operative part of the order while consequential relief of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs were granted to the complainant, the grant of main relief of refund of principal amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was omitted through an oversight,. Without grant of the main relief grant of consequential relief, both in essence and amount, affords little or no justice to the complainant.”
It is a settled law that this Forum has no jurisdiction to review its own order.
Reference is placed on the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. IV(2011) CPJ 35(SC) = 2011 9 SCC 541.
The copy of order be sent to complainants and OPs by post. File be consigned to Record Room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
