This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Rakesh Bedi against the orders dated 17.02.2016 & 31.05.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.FA-400/13.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.03 of 2012 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the District Forum’).  However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the District Forum for want of jurisdiction.  The petitioner/complainant then preferred an appeal bearing No.400/2013 before the State Commission. The matter was settled between the parties as recorded vide order dated 17.02.2016 where the State Commission has recorded the following:-

“The parties have settled the matter.

        Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that respondent is ready to refund the amount which the respondent/Op received from the appellant/complainant with interest @9% from the date of deposit till realization.  Respondent has also agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs to the appellant.

        Appellant is present alongwith his counsel states that the aforesaid offer is acceptable to him and appellant shall not press the present appeal in case the aforesaid payment is made to him.

        The counsel for the respondent states that the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent within three months from today.

        Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that as the matter has been amicably settled with the respondent as such appellant does not want to pursue the present appeal and be permitted to withdraw the same.

        In view of the above statement of the appellant, the present appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.”

3.      On the next date of hearing i.e. 31.05.20116 State Commission has passed the following order:-

“Respondent had deposited two drafts in this Commission.  However, today is the last date of expiry of one of the draft. Counsel for the respondent states that the same will be re-validated in two days time.  However, the appellant received a draft of Rs.5,000/-.

        On joint request of the parties re-notify for 03.06.2016.”

4.      On 03.06.2016, State commission has recorded the following:-

“Counsel for the appellant has filed his memo of appearance.

                    Respondent has brought a pay order of Rs.2,43,000/-.  Photocopy of the same is retained on record.  There was some short fall in the calculations.  Rs.32,000/- has been brought in cash by the respondent.  The aforesaid pay order as well as cash amount are received on behalf of the appellant by his son Sh. Siddarth Bedi who is present with the Counsel.  The said Counsel has identified him.

                    We may mention that appellant was present with the aforesaid Counsel in the morning.  However, after lunch appellant has not appeared.

                    There is an application of appellant seeking modification of the order dated 17.2.16.

                    Counsel for the appellant states that appellant is not pressing the same.  The same is also not maintainable before us as the prayer made in the application, if allowed will amount to review of order dated 17.2.16.

                    Since the Counsel for the appellant has stated that appellant is not pressing the aforesaid application.  The aforesaid application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

                    Ld. Counsel for the appellant has assured that all the documents pertaining to the booking of the plot in question shall be returned to the respondent within two weeks from today.

                    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate for information.

                   File be consigned to Record Room.”

5.      Now the complainant has filed this revision petition against the orders dated 17.2.2016 & 31.5.2016.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant could not understand the intricacies of the settlement proposed by the respondent and therefore, agreed before the State Commission for the same. However when the complainant realised that the complainant is being put to huge loss, the complainant filed an application for modification of the order dated 17.02.2016.  However on 03.6.2016, the State Commission dismissed the application and therefore, the present revision petition has been filed.  Settlement is against the interest of the petitioner/complainant and amount has been refunded with simple interest of 9% p.a. whereas, the compound interest should have been paid by the opposite party.  It was prayed that either the compound interest @ 9% should be ordered or the rate of interest be increased from 9% to 18% p.a., which is being followed in the cases of refund.

7.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party stated that at the time of settlement, the petitioner as well as his counsel were present and therefore, it is incorrect to say that he complainant did not understand complete implication of the settlement.  The settlement was reached on 17.2.2016 and the State commission has approved the settlement vide its order of the same date.  Even on the next date of hearing i.e. 31.5.2016, there was no objection from the complainant to the settlement.  As the drafts were expired, so another date was fixed for payment to the complainant on 03.06.2016.  On this date, the complainant’s son Sh. Siddarth Bedi accepted the draft along with  Rs.32,000/- in cash, therefore, the execution of settlement was complete in all respects.  No question can be raised in respect of the settlement now.

8.      It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that as an afterthought after receiving the money, the complainant moved an application for modification of order dated 17.02.2016 wherein compound interest was sought.  However, this application was withdrawn by the complainant himself as is clearly mentioned in order dated 03.06.2016 of the State Commission. The petitioner/complainant in his revision petition has wrongly stated in para one that the application dated 02.03.2016 for modification of order dated 17.02.2016 has been rejected on 31.5.2016.

 9.     The fact is that the application was withdrawn by the complainant himself.  Thus, the complainant does not have any ground to approach this Commission for granting the relief prayed in that application. 

10.    Learned counsel referred to Section 96 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), wherein it is clearly provided that no appeal shall lie against an order based on the basis of settlement.  As the settlement was agreed by the parties at the stage of the appeal, the same provision will apply in the present revision petition. 

11.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.  The State Commission has clearly mentioned in its order dated 17.2.2016 that the parties have reached settlement and even the settlement terms have been mentioned in brief.  Even on the next date of hearing i.e. 31.05.2016, no objection was raised by the complainant with regard to the settlement terms, though the drafts were before the complainant and he must have known as to what amount he was likely to get on the next date of hearing i.e. 03.06.2016. Son of the complainant accepted pay order of Rs.243,000/- and in cash Rs.32,000/-.  Thus, the contract of settlement was complete on 03.06.2016. Accordingly, no objection was tenable before the State Commission after 03.06.2016.  However, an application was filed for modification of order dated 17.02.2016, which was later on withdrawn by the petitioner/complainant as recorded in the order dated 03.06.2016 of the State Commission.  If the petitioner has already withdrawn application before the State Commission, he is not entitled to press for the same before this Commission as settlement has already been given effect to.  When no appeal is sustainable against an order based on settlement, I wonder if in the revision petition, the same can be challenged as the scope of the revision petition is quite limited as compared to the appeal and is only restricted to jurisdictional aspects.

12.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and accordingly the revision petition No.2627 of 2016 is dismissed.