Punjab

Ludhiana

MA/23/51

Sheveta Vohra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saggar World - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Miscellaneous Application No:51 dated 15.05.2023                                                      Date of decision: 19.05.2023. 

Saggar World Holiday, Model Town Road, Opposite White House, Ludhiana through Prop./Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                                Applicant/Opposite Party No.1

                                                Versus                                                        1.Shaveta Vohra d/o Vijay Vohra                                                              2.Vijay Vohra s/o Ram Lal Vohra                                                               3.Renu Vohra w/o Vijay Vohra                                                                       All r/o 1761, Phase-1, Urban Estate Dugri, Ludhiana-141002.

Respondents/complainants

                                                and

4.Etihad Airways, 2^nd Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barkhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through Manager/Account Manager/Authorized Signatory.

5.Etihad Airways, Ist Floor, Sunder Mahal, 141, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400020 through its Manager/Administrator/Authorized signatory.

6.Etihad Airways, Head Office at New Airport Road, Khalifa City A, PO Box 35566, Abu Dhabi, UAE, through Director/Managing Director.

                                                                   Opposite parties

Review Application by the opposite party no.1 Saggar World Holiday in the order dated 23.08.2022 in RBT/CC/18/274 under section 40 of C.P.Act, 2019 and for continuation of the proceedings as per spirit of the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in RA/22/2 of Rupnagar Consumer Commission.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For applicant/Opposite party No.1            :         Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The present review application has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 Saggar World Holiday in the order dated 23.08.2022 in RBT/CC/18/274 under Section 40 of the C.P.Act, 2019 and for continuation of the proceedings as per spirit of the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in RA/22/2 of Rupnagar Consumer Commission. It has been submitted that Rup Nagar Consumer Commission passed the order in RBT/CC/18/274 on 23.08.2022 which was received by the OP1 on 24.10.2022 bearing receipt No.233 dated 20.10.2022. In the aforesaid order under para no.10 directions were issued to OPs to comply with the order whereas the present OP1 is nowhere liable to be held for rendering of deficient/negligent services to the complainant. By filing the aforesaid review application, it has been prayed by the OP1 that the name of OP1 may kindly be excluded/exempted from compliance of the order as well as the OP1 may kindly be excluded from the word OPs in para no.10 of the order while specifying the order dated 23.08.2022 in this regard for implementation of the orders by the opposite party no.2 to 4 only. This application is supported with affidavit of Mr.Rupjeet Saggar, Sole Proprietor of OP1 and also attached documents i.e. photocopy of order dated 23.08.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Camp Court at Ludhiana and copy of order dated 31.03.2023.

2.                We have heard the counsel for the applicant/OP1 on this application and have also gone through the record very carefully.

3.                Perusal of review application shows that the application/OP1 has sought review of the order dated 23.08.2022 passed in RBT/CC/18/274 whereby Camp Court of District Commission Rupnagar had allowed the aforesaid complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

“1.To refund the amount of Rs. 2,95,482/- air tickets charges from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York  to the complainants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of cancellation of the flight.

2. To refund the payment of Rs.1,28,630/- i.e. 1924.56 US Dollars X.

 Rs.66.84 i.e. at the time of that incident (price of US Dollar), for spending the amount during their stay at New York.

3. To refund the amount of Rs.1000 dollars i.e. 200 dollar each luggage, for causing delay in delivery of luggage.

4. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation

5. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OPS were further directed to comply with the said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.”

4.                Further, in para no.1 in the review application, it has been admitted by the applicant/OP1 that the order dated 23.08.2022 was received by him on 24.10.2022 bearing receipt No.233 dated 20.10.2022. Perusal of the review application also shows that applicant/OP1 had filed RA/22/02 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar and the same was disposed of on 31.03.2023 by passing the following order:-

“From the perusal of this application, it is observed that original case file has already been sent to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana. Accordingly, this review application stands disposed of. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach to District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana for further proceedings. In case of need as per law. This Review application stands disposed of accordingly.”

5.                Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers the District Commission to review its own order either suo-moto on the application made by any of the parties within 30 days from the date of such order. The bare provision of Section 40 is reproduced as under:-

“The District 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.”

 

6.                Although, what is “an error apparent on face of record” has not been defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but the judicial interpretation in this context is crystal clear. In State of W.B. versus Kamal Sengupta-(2008)8 SCC-612, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“The term ‘mistake or error apparent’ by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record… To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.”

 

7.                On close scrutiny of review application reveals that the applicant/OP1 has referred the facts, circumstances and grounds on merits which are impressible under law. The applicant/OP1 could not point out any error apparent on the face of the record. By moving the present application, the applicant/OP1 has purportedly sought grounds for setting aside the judgment/order on merits. Hence, the application for review is not maintainable.

8.                The another issue which arises for consideration is whether the second review application beyond the period of limitation is maintainable or not. The first order on the review application was passed on 31.03.2023 and the present application has been filed by the applicant/OP1 on 19.05.2023 i.e. after the lapse of period of 49 days after the passing of the aforesaid orders. It is well settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Bharmaputra Biochem Private Limited versus New India Assurance Company & another-2022(1)Apex Court Judgments 327 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that complaint cannot be returned unadjudicated with liberty to file fresh complaint as complaint can be filed within period of limitation and once period of limitation expires, complainant cannot file second complaint.  In view of the aforesaid law, the second review application is not maintainable.

9.                As a result of the above discussion, the application filed by the applicant/OP1 is not maintainable before this Commission and the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be supplied to the party free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)       (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.05.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma