ORDERS ON ADMISSION
The petitioner, who is OP-2 in CC/565/2021 has filed this petition to set-aside the order dt.05.07.2022 passed by this commission in CC/565/2021 dt.05.07.2022 by allowing this Review Application.
The petitioner has also filed IA under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 40 of the C.P.Act to condone the delay of 123 days in filing this Review Application.
The contention taken by the petitioner is that he has challenged the order passed by this Commission in CC/565/2021in so far against the OP-2 this petitioner. This commission has placed him exparte on 03.01.2022 without even verifying as to whether notice was duly served on this petitioner/OP-2 and placed him exparte and posted the matter for filing version of OP-1 on 17.01.2022. Further steps were not taken by this commission to send the notice or summons to petitioner/Op-2 at any later point.
It is further contention taken by the petitioner that the postal acknowledgement borne on the file that OP-2 was not duly served, there is no rubber stamp affixed by the person who is alleged to have received the notice sent by this commission. This petitioner/Op-2 is a company operating its activities duly in accordance with law with a full pledged set-up. This OP-2 being a private limited company having its office as the address stated n the cause title for the past several years. Normally the person incharge in their company of on receipt of any post, courier shall acknowledge the receipt by affixing the rubber stamp and signed by the receptionist or employee of their company. The postal acknowledgement placed in the file not bearing the seal or signature of their employee. So there is no due service of notice upon this OP-2 and hence it had no occasion to be present before this commission.
This commission passed the order by placing this OP-2 exparte and by fastening huge financial burden without hearing this OP-2 as resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
This OP has received the notice in the Execution petition and after that he has filed this petition.
On this background we have gone through section 40 of the C.P.Act, 2019 and which reads as follows
“This District 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 application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order”
As per section 40, this District Consumer Commission have the powers to review any order passed by it if there is error apparent on the face of the record either on its own or any application filed by any of the parties within 30 days of such order.
In this case, this commission has passed order on 05.07.2022. The petitioner has filed this petition before this commission on 15.12.2022 i.e. after lapse of 123 days. When the petitioner has not filed petition within 30 days from the date of passing of the order the Revision Application cannot be admitted. In addition to this the grounds taken by the petitioner are not at all any error apparent on the face of the record or the typographical mistake. The petitioner has taken the serious contention stating that this commission passed order by placing him exparte without properly verifying about the service of the notice and the order is liable to be set-aside. The grounds stated in the petition are good grounds for the appeal and not grounds for review of the order. The petitioner has aggrieved by the order passed by this commission alleging that this commission has placed him exparte even though the notice was not served on their company.
This commission has passed the considered order by taking into consideration the complaint and version filed by the Op-1 and also evidence and the documents adduced by both the parties and allowed the complaint in part by fixing liability on this OP-2 and also OP-1 jointly and severally. When this commission has not passed the exparte order and passed the considered order by fixing the liability on this OP-2 the petitioner, this commission cannot review its own order when it is passed on merits. The petition is barred by time. The petitioner instead of filing an appeal before the competent State Commission has simply filed this Review Application by taking grounds which were to be taken in the Appeal after receiving the notice in the Execution petition filed by the respondent, just to avoid in complying the order passed by this commission. The conduct of the petitioner clearly discloses that he has preferred this petition just to drag on the execution petition and to avoid payment of the amount and comply the order of this commission. Therefore, there is no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner and it is also barred by limitation. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following
ORDER
- The petition under section 40 of C.P.Act, 2019 is hereby rejected with no cost.
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
