(Passed on 18/2/2019)

Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. Advocate Mr. S.M. Rathi is present for applicant. We have heard him on the point of admission of the present application and perused the record of this application. 
2. This application is filed by the original opposite party ( for short OP) No. 1 in consumer complaint No. 136/2012, which was joined in appeal No. A/13/282 as respondent No. 1. It is requested  in this application  that  time of three months may be granted for compliance of the order passed by this Commission in appeal No. A/13/282 or any other direction may be given to meet the ends of justice.
3. The learned advocate of the applicant submitted that  as per direction given in appeal No. A/13/282, the applicant is required to deliver to the complainant the new Nano Car after bearing all the cost, insurance and other charges in the span of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order and in case of failure the applicant is required  to pay Rs. 50/- per day as  rent till final delivery of the said vehicle to the original complainant. It is further submitted by the advocate of the applicant that due to non availability of the said vehicle, it is not possible by the applicant to  purchase the said vehicle and deliver it to the original complainant/respondent No. 1 herein. Moreover, it is also submitted by him that the original  complainant/respondent No. 1 has not provided address proof, licence and Aadhar card as required by the applicant. According to him, it is very difficult for applicant to purchase new Nano Car and deliver it to the original complainant.
4. We find that when this Commission already decided the appeal No. A/13/282 after hearing both parties and by passing final order on 18/7/2018 then  there is no question of  granting extension  of time for compliance of that order. This Commission  as per final order dated 18/07/2018 had already granted time of 30 days for making compliance from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Moreover, this Commission has no power of review of its own order as the law is settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others  Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another reported in 2012 (2) Mh.L J 1. As per said decision, this Commission has no power of review of its order. Therefore we hold that the present application is not tenable in law. Accordingly the application is rejected. No order as to cost. Copy of this order be provided free  of cost  to the applicant.