By way of present review application, M/s. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has sought review of order dated 14.03.2018 passed by this Commission in CC No.1434 of 2015.

Section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:

        “ Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face of record.”

          From the contents of Section 22(2), it is clear that review is limited only to the error apparent on the face of record.

          The applicant has stated in the review application that the applicant/opposite party had issued offer of possession vide letter dated 14.02.2017 and therefore, the order relating to 6% p.a. interest on the deposited amount has been asked to be set aside.  It is seen from the record that this letter dated 14.02.2017 has been filed along with review application and the same was not filed in the main complaint case before the date of final arguments. Moreover the learned counsel for the opposite party did not make any averment in this regard during the arguments and whatever was argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party/applicant is recorded in the following paragraph of the decision of this Commission dated 14.03.2018:-

“4.     The learned counsel for the OP stated that the work is in progress and as soon as the construction is complete, the possession will be handed over. In respect of interest on the deposited amount for the delayed period, it was stated that there is already provision in the agreement for compensation @ Rs.5/-  per sq. ft. per month for the delayed period, and therefore, no separate compensation is required to be paid for delay in possession. It was further prayed by the learned counsel that the judgment of this Commission in Satish Kumar Pandey and another (supra) is of 2015 and since then the interest scenario has drastically changed and there is a steep decline in the interest rates.  It was requested that if any interest is to be awarded, the declining trend of interest rates may be considered.”

          From the above observation of this Commission, it is clear that till that time the construction was not completed and therefore, issuance of letter dated 14.02.2017 is in doubt.  Moreover, from the copy of this letter filed along with the review application, it is seen that it was not an offer of possession, rather it was a pre-possession notice calling the consumer to pay the demand raised by the opposite party within 21 days.

          From the above, it is clear that the order dated 14.03.2018 was passed by this Commission on the basis of the record available with this Commission and on the basis of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties.

          Thus,  after going through the record and the review application, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record, which calls for review of order dated 14.03.2018 passed by this Commission. 

          Accordingly, application for review stands dismissed.