Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RA/23/123

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RUDRAKSH GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWIN RASTOGI

30 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                            

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2023

 

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA

PVT. LTD.                                                                                                               …          APPLICANT

 

               Versus

 

RUDRAPRAKASH GUPTA & ANR.                                                                        …         RESPONDENTS

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                   :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY           :      MEMBER                          

 

                                      O R D E R

 

30.05.2024

 

       Ms. Amrita Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.

           

As per A. K. Tiwari :

                  Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

                  The applicant has filed this review application seeking restoration of First Appeal No.851 of 2020 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.11.2023.

2.                Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there was a lack of representation on behalf of the appellant on the proceeding dated 10.11.2023 and the same occurred due to certain unforeseeable logistic problems faced by counsel representing the appellant due to which travelling was not feasible for representing counsel. She argued that on

-2-

24.08.2023 the appellant was duly present before this Commission but the Commission committed a grave oversight and prejudice to the appellant by recording that there has been lack of prosecution by the appellant.

3.                On going through the order sheets we find that none was present for the appellant on 24.07.2023 and on 24.08.2023 request has been made on behalf of appellant to adjourn the matter, thus the argument of learned counsel that the appellant was present on 24.08.2023 is totally baseless. 

4.                    Be that as it may. Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 (Act of 2019) which is relevant for the purposes for deciding the issue involved in the case is reproduced hereunder:-

50. Review by State Commission in certain cases- 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.

 

5.                Bare perusal of the aforesaid section makes it clear that an order can be reviewed by the State Commission only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 

6.                In view of the aforesaid, we are of a considered opinion that there is no such error, apparent on the face of the record in the order which

-3-

is being challenged, therefore, it does not call for exercising review jurisdiction conferred upon the State Commission under Section 50 of the Act of 2019.  Even otherwise, this Commission has no power for restoration of case. Accordingly, the review application filed by the applicant, seeking restoration of appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution not being maintainable, is dismissed.

 

             (A. K. Tiwari)                      (Dr. Srikant Pandey) 

          Acting President                              Member