Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/9/2023

NITYA NANDAN GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

POSSIBLE EDUCATION PVT. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Addl. Bench]

==========

 

Review Application No. in RP/46/2023	:	RA/09/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	20/12/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	20/02/2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Nitya Nandan son of Sanjay Garg, through his father Sanjay Garg. 

 

2.     Sanjay Garg father of Nitya Nandan Garg. 

 

Both residents of House No. 1102, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana.

….Applicants/Revision Petitioners

 

Versus

 

 

1.     Possible Education Private Limited, having its registered office at 25-B, First Floor, Ashok Marg, Sikander Bagh Crossing, Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P. 226001.

 

2.     Sh.Satyam Shankar Sahai, Chairman, CLAT Possible

 

3.     Surabhi Modi Sahai, Director

 

Both Directors of Possible Education Private Limited, having its registered office at 25-B, First Floor, Ashok Marg, Sikander Bagh Crossing, Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P. 226001.

 

4.     CLAT Possible Centre, O/o Possible Education Pvt. Ltd., SCO 309-310, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Incharge – Jeetendra Brar.

 

5.     Ms. Nidhi Mahajan.

 

6.     Jeetendra Brar.

 

Both Employees/ Centre Incharge at CLAT Possible Centre, O/o Possible Education Pvt. Ltd., SCO 309-310, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

 

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS.PADMA PANDEY    PRESIDING MEMBER   

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the Applicants/Revision Petitioners

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

This Review application has been filed by the Applicants/Revision Petitioners under the provisions of Section 50 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking review of order dated 01.12.2023, vide which, Revision Petition bearing No.46 of 2023 filed by the Applicants/Revision Petitioners against the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint bearing No.885 of 2022 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

2.         We have heard the Learned Counsel  for the Applicants/Revision Petitioners and have also gone through the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

3.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant review application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

4.         Learned Counsel for the Applicants/ Revision Petitioners argued that from the very beginning, the services of the Respondents/Opposite Parties were not upto the mark. The Respondents did not provide the study material despite several requests and whatever study material was supplied was given late and only after repeated requests. He has argued that this amounts to being an error apparent on the face of the record and the impugned order deserves its modification by granting all the reliefs as prayed for in the Complaint.

 

5.         However, we are not impressed with the arguments raised by the Learned Counsel  for the Applicants/Revision Petitioners, in as much as, this Commission after due consideration and appreciation of the entire documentary evidence available on record, passed the order under review. The alleged point of non-supply/late supply of the study material in the facts and circumstances of the case would have little consequence especially when this Commission has categorically held that the Respondents have no right to retain the hard earned money of the Applicants/ Revision Petitioners and the Respondents should have refunded the fees for the period the student did not attend the classes. Pertinently, this Commission also held the terms & conditions signed between the parties as one sided and biased totally in favour of the Respondents and against the principle of equity & natural justice and thus, the point of non-supply/late supply of the study material carries little weight and substance.  

 

6.         Needless to mention here that the issues raised now by means of present review application have already been dealt with in detail by this Commission in order dated 01.12.2023. It may be stated here that each Consumer Commission has been empowered to review its own order under the provisions of Sections 40, 50 and 60 of the Act. The power under the Statute is highly limited as compared to the powers of civil court to review its own orders under the provisions of Section 114 read with order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is beneficial to refer following provisions of law: -

 

Section 50 of the Act:- "The State 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 an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order."

 

7.         In the light of aforesaid provision, the prayer of the Applicants/ Revision Petitioners to review order dated 01.12.2023 is misconstrued and misapplied inasmuch as Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers this Commission to review its order only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and we do not find any such apparent error on record. Therefore, this review application does not merit consideration.

 

8.         It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.  In Lilly Thomas v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute views.    

 

9.         From the above observation of Hon'ble Apex Courts, it is crystal clear that the power of review cannot be equated with the power of appeal as the scope of review is very limited.  Besides this, the scope of review under the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is highly limited and only to the extent of “an error apparent on the face of record”.

 

10.         Whatever observed by this Commission in the order dated 01.12.2023 is based upon the factual position on record. There is no any apparent error on record and there is no need to review same.

 

11.         For the reasons recorded above, this review application stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The remedy lies with the Applicants/ Revision Petitioners to challenge the order, as per law, if advised.

 

12.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

13.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

20^th February 2024                                                            

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”