KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 36/2023

ORDER DATED: 13.03.2024

(Against the Order in R.P. No. 03/22 in C.C. 172/2019 of CDRC, Tvpm)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Hashir A., Managing Director, Deligence Construction, Haripad, residing at Sulekha Manzil, Kumanapuram P.O., Haripad, Alappuzha.

                                          (By Advs. Radhakrishnan K. & Priyadarsini V.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sekhar, Shanmugha Vilasom, Amritha Nagar, Near Thoppil Apartments, H-Sector, Kaimanam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 018.

                                       (By Adv. Meena C.R.)

ORDER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R: MEMBER

This revision petition is filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 172/2019 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Commission for short).  As per the order dated 20.02.2023 the District Commission dismissed the review petition No. 03/2022filed by the opposite party.  Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party has filed this revision petition.

2.  The complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in connection with the construction of a residential building.  The complaint was posted for evidence and the complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and their documents were marked.  The revision petitioner was permitted to cross examine the complainant through an Advocate Commissioner on payment of Rs. 2,000/- as commission batta.  However, the revision petitioner could not pay the commission batta in time.  Consequently I.A. No. 330/2022 for permission to conduct cross examination of the complainant was dismissed on 29.09.2022 by the District Commission for non-payment of batta.  The revision petitioner filed a review petition No. 03/2022 to review the order dated 29.09.2022 of the District Commission in the said I.A.  The District Commission dismissed the review petition on 20.02.2023 stating that they have no authority to review their own order as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The revision petitioner challenges the said order.

3.  Heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the order dated 20.02.2023 of the District Commission dismissing the review petition is against the principles of natural justice and is against the law and procedure.  According to him, cross examination of the complainant by the opposite party is a matter of right.  The revision petitioner/opposite party was directed to file an application for getting permission to conduct the cross examination of the complainant.  Accordingly, I.A. No. 330/2022 was filed and it was allowed on condition of payment of commission batta of Rs. 2,000/-.  However, this batta could not be paid as the advocate on the other side was not available.  The case was called on 29.09.2022 without any notice and I.A. No. 330/2022 was dismissed on the ground that commission batta was not paid and hence complainant’s evidence was closed.  He prayed for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2023 of the District Commission in the Review Petition No. 03/2022 and allow the revision petitioner/opposite party to conduct the cross examination of the respondent/complainant. 

4.  The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently opposed the contentions of the revision petitioner.  She submitted that despite specific direction of the District Commission the commission batta was not paid by the revision petitioner. The contentions of the revision petitioner are without bonafides. Hence the District Commission has rightly dismissed the I.A. No. 330/2022.  The learned counsel further submitted that the District Commission has no power to review their own order as per the Consumer protection Act, 1986.   Hence she prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

5.  We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records.  This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 20.02.2023 of the District Commission in the review petition No. 03/2022 stating that power to review the order is not applicable in the case as the complaint was filed as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

6. In our view the only issue to be decided in this case is whether the District Commission is justified in passing the order dismissing the review petition.  We observe that the complaint was filed as per Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  There is no provision for review by the District Commission as per the said Act. The power to review the order is available as per Sec. 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is effective from 20.07.2020 only.  As the complaint was filed under the Consumer protection Act, 1986, the provision regarding review under Sec. 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not applicable in this case.  Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Commission.  There is no merit in the contentions put forward by the Revision Petitioner. We do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Commission under its revisional jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to grant any of the reliefs sought for in this Revision Petition.

          This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

        AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER