Delhi

New Delhi

CC/463/2014

Rajesh Kunal Keshari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Vardhman Developers - Opp.Party(s)

17 Feb 2022

ORDER

 

17.02.2022

CC/463/2014

Heard through Video Conferencing

Present. None for complainant.

Vide this order we proceed to dispose off the application filed by complainant for review filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Section 151 CPC and the Provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

1. The averments made are the applicant/complainant had filed the present complaint before this Commission, however, the same was returned to the complainant on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, It is further stated that in recent amendment in the C.P. Act, which has come into effect, the jurisdiction of all the Consumer Foras has been revised enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of this  Commission to Rupees One Crore.

We have perused the record.

The complaint was returned to the complainant vide order of this Commission dated 11.09.2019 which is as under:

In view of the above the complaint was returned to the complainant vide order dated 11.09.2019 which is as under reliefs sought by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum does not have pecuniary jurisdiction as the cost of the flat/plot and relief claimed exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Accordingly, the objection of pecuniary jurisdiction raised by the OP is allowed and the complaint be returned to the complainant along with annexures/documents by retaining a copy of the same for records with liberty to file the same before the competent Forum as per the law. The particulars in the light of the judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tusar Batra and Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26.04.2017, Case no. 299 of 2014 are follows.

By way of present application, complainant is seeking review of the above order  which is not permissible. In this regard it has been held in Eureka Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. A.P. State Consumer Disputes AIR 2005 AP 118 by Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh. The power of review is not vested in the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies. The relevant paras of the judgement are as under:

“Section 13(4) of the Act declares that the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in aCivil Court under of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters,

It is thus clear thata reading of conspectus of provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder makes it clear that Code of Civil Procedure, 19.08, as such, are not applicable to the indicated in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies, which are not vested with the power of Civil Court, are not entitled to exercise the review jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the absence of any specific provision conferred upon them by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the power of substantive review does not exist in the District Forum or the State Commission. The power of review is not an incidental one but a substantive power unless specifically conferred, does not inhere in quasi-judicial bodies constituted and created under the statute.

They have no inherent jurisdiction as that of a Civil Court. Their jurisdiction is clearly defined and spelled out by the provisio of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. They cannot define their own jurisdiction but are bound by the provision of the Act and the Rules.

As regards the submissions made in the application that in view of the amendment in the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the jurisdiction of all Consumer Foras has been revised as such the order dated 11.09.2019 may be reviewed, it is to be noted that the Consumer Protection Act 2019 came into force w.e.f. 20.07.2020. It does not have retrospective operation. It is to be noted that it has been held in Prachi Mathur Vs. M/s Tdi Infrastructure Ltd. Review application no. 6/2020 decided by Hon’ble State Commission decided on 08.10.2020 as under.

In fact, the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is prospective in nature and parties whose rights and obligations were settled as per the old Act, cannot make use of the provisions of the new Act.

For foregoing reason we are of the view that the application is not maintainable.

The same is dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

PRESIDENT

          MEMBER                                                                                                                  MEMBER