PER:HON’BLE MR.B.B.RASAL, MEMBER

1. The present review application filed by complainant, on 9^th June 2022, Under Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order passed in Consumer Complaint No.324/2020 on17/05/2023.

2. The grounds mentioned in review application is that there is a typographical mistake where by the compensatory part of monthly compensation is completely missed out and it is mistake apparent from the order for the simple reason that Hon’ble Commission while recording reason specifically held that as per clause number five of the agreement opposite parties are liable to pay monthly compensation toward the temporary alternative accommodation at the rate Rs.8000/- per month from May 2016 with increment @10% every year together with the interest of 12%. The Complainant further contended that since there is no specific rejection of said prayer since there is no reason shown in the entire order for the same it is so probable that the monthly compensation part is missed out from the order due to typographic mistake.

3. Therefore the complainant submitted that this Commission exercise its review power, and if it is decided on merit there is no prejudice of any nature would be cause to respondent. The complainant and prayer modified order of 17^th  May 2023 by adding the monthly compensation from 2016 with increment@10% every year together with the interest at the rate 12% over the areas of to the complainant till the date of possession of flat in question is handed over to complainant.

4. The review application was admitted and issue notice to opponent. The opponent are not appear in present review application. The complainant filed paper publication on record. The opposite party not appear nor file their statement. Heard complainant advocate at the length.

5. Perused the application of Complainant and document filed by complainant along with application. The Commission minutely perused the order of predecessor Commission, it appear that in the said order Hon'able Commission under the heading of reasons stated that complainant succeed to prove his case, the commission also recorded  in reasoning as per clause number five of agreement in which there is a provision to pay Rs.8000/- per month to complainant till the date. The opponent put complainant in legal and very valid possession. The opponent failed to delivered possession to complainant. The opponent are given many opportunity to appear and put their defence, but they fail to appear therefore contention made by complainant in complaint and as well as supported with affidavit is proved beyond reasonable doubt therefore Commission pass the order.

6. It appears that there is no order regarding monthly compensation, it is also not appear that it was rejected or its specifically rejected in order, the complaint is partly allowed, hence all prayer of complainant not allowed by Commission.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances, the submission made by learned advocate of complainant, documents and order on record, the commission is arrived at conclusion that there is no order regarding monthly compensation, it was not rejected specifically. But in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court and power Under Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, clear that there is a limited scope and it is very limited and technical scope, only regarding if there is any error apparent on face of record, but the commission could not amend or alter the previous order. The present prayer of complainant is not error apparent on face of record, the complainant seeking addition in said order, therefore in our considered view the application is liable to be rejected. Hence the following order.

         ORDER.

1. The Review Application No.2/2023 hereby rejected.

2. Copy provide to complainant.