Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/10/2024

JAKARA INTERNATIONAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROHAN RANA - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. KHERA

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Addl. Bench]

==========

Review Application No. in Appeal No.327 of 2023	:	RA/10/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	09/07/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	08/08/2024

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. (Non-Operational) through its Authorized Representatives at T4B, 3^rd Floor, Centra Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Directors Mr. Harkanwar Singh, Mr. Karanbir Singh and Mr. Deepinder SBS Johar.

IInd Address:-  H.No.535, Phase-10, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

IIIrd Address:- H.No.2164, Phase-7, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

IVth Address:-  Flat No.D-204, Ivory Towers, Sector 70, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

…. Applicant/Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

Rohan Rana son of Kuldeep Singh Rana, Resident of H.No.61-B, Sector 29-A, Chandigarh.

Now, resident of House No.258-A, Tribune Society, Kansal, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali – 160103.

…… Respondent 

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. G.S. Khera, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.

 

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                This Review application has been filed by the Applicant/Appellant – M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking review of order dated 31.05.2024, vide which, Appeal bearing No.327 of 2023 filed by the Appellant along with cross appeal bearing No. 16 of 2024 filed by the Respondent – Sh. Rohan Rana against the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint bearing No.327 of 2021, was dismissed and the orders of the Ld. District Commission was upheld, however with the modification that both Opposite Parties in the Complaint shall be liable to pay the amount of ₹8,00,000/- jointly and severally. The other part of the impugned order was kept intact.

 

2.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant and have also gone through the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection with his able assistance.

 

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 Applicant/ Appellant argued with vehemence that the judgment under review was delivered without any logical evidence produced on record and in the whole judgment the word allurement by the Appellant was mentioned without referring to any cognizable proof. He has submitted that in the whole process the Applicant/ Appellant became victim of Respondent as the university was suggested by the father of Respondent and further investigations were also done by them and it was a matter of record & evidence which was grossly overlooked and required to be reviewed. Furthermore, the Respondent received the mail from the University that once admission was taken no fee could be refunded as a policy matter and at no point of time, the Respondent accused the University for having low infrastructure or deficiency and then on which ground the Respondent could claim the refund.

 

5.         The pointers agitated herein for reviewing the order, however, lacks merit and does not hold much water in as much as, the scope of review by this Court is very limited. It is settled that the review would be permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason is made out. We are also equally aware of the fact that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The review of the judgment would be permissible only if a material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. We are also aware that such an error should be an error apparent on the face of the record and should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

 

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 31.05.2024. 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 Applicant/Appellant to review order dated 31.05.2024 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 31.05.2024 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 Applicant/Appellant 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

08^th Aug. 2024                                                           

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”