This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.5.2012 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola by which the application made by the Petitioners herein has been rejected. Elevan complaints were filed before the District Consumer Forum, Akola by the complainants against the Respondents herein. The said complaints were dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola by passing separate orders holding that no cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The complainants were given liberty to file fresh complaints before the competent forum. The application was thereafter moved by the applicants i.e. Ori.Complainants before the same District Consumer Forum, Akola which was registered as MA No.01/2012. It was prayed in that application that the order dated 13 March,2012 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola dismissing their complaints be recalled and the complaints be proceeded with. District Consumer Forum below, after hearing the applicants on that application held that it has got no jurisdiction to recall its own order. In order to come to that conclusion, the District Consumer Forum, has relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Raju Pathak & Ors. Vs.Achyut Karekar and Anr. 12(1) CPR 78. The District Consumer Forum, Akola also observed in its order that there is no error in the order passed by it in the complaint and that sufficient opportunity was given to the complainants in those complaints and that the reasoned order has been passed dismissing these complaints. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum below rejected those applications by passing the impugned order.
Feeling dissatisfied by that order, the Ori.complainants have filed this Revision Petition.
Shri.A.P.Gawande, authorized representative of the Revision Petitioners is heard. The Responent failed to appear despite service of notice. Therefore we proceeded exparte against the Respondent.
At the outset, it is necessary to mention here that though the 11 complaints were decided by the District Consumer Forum, below by passing separate orders, common application was moved before the District Consumer Forum, Akola to recall all those orders. We find that such common application itself is not tenable before the District Consumer Forum, however, it was entertained by the District Consumer Forum, without considering the said material fact.
Otherwise also, we find that the impugned order is correct and proper. Though the Representative of the applicant/Rev.Petitioner relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in th case of Shahid Bhagatsingh Co.Op Hsg.Society Ltd. Vs. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, we find that the facts involved in that case are totally different from the facts in the case in hand. Therefore the said decision is not applicable to the present case. In that case, the Commission had not issued notice of the date of hearing to Mr.Pradeep Gupta, and it is observed by the Supreme Court that since it was the mistake of the commission on account of which the Revision was dismissed in default and hence the commission was justified in recalling its order and restoring the revision to its original number. In the instant case, no such mistake was committed by the District Consumer Forum, below.
We also find that the District Consumer Forum, Akola in the order impugned has also made a reference to the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs.Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. 2012(1) CPR 78 wherein it is specifically observed by the Supreme Court that, after the amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22 A in the Act in the year 2002, by which the power of review or recall has been vested with the National Commission only, the State Commission as well as the District Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to set aside its own order.
In view of this recent case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find that the District Consumer Forum has committed no error in rejecting the application of the Revision Petitioners. We find no merits in the Revision Petition. It is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
