Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:-

            This is an application filed by the appellant/applicant for recalling and/or setting aside the order dated 25/10/2007 passed by State Commission in M.A.no.2142/2007 and F.A.no.1581/2007.

          Initially, the respondent had filed complaint no.169/2007 before District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kolhapur.  Said complaint was decided on 20/09/2007.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, F.A.no.1581/2007 was filed on 13/12/2007.  However, there was delay of 70 days in filing said appeal and therefore; M.A.No.2142/2007 was filed by the appellant/applicant for condonation of delay.  Said delay condonation application was for hearing before State Commission on 25/10/2010.  It was earlier for hearing on 09/08/2010 and lastly appeared on board on 25/10/2010.  On 25/10/2010 no one was present for the appellant, but it appears that one Mr.Vishal Bodhe, as proxy Advocate for Adv.Mr.P.Patil, appearing for appellant, appeared on said date.  He simply prayed for adjournment without intimating any difficulty of Adv.Mr.P.Patil.  Adjournment was rejected by the State Commission and thereafter, delay condonation application was heard on merit and on merit order has been passed rejecting the delay condonation application and so also in the result, appeal was rejected.  To recall this order of State Commission, present application has been filed

          We are not in favour of entertaining this application, firstly, because order of delay condonation application has been passed by State Commission on merit and since, there is no power with the State Commission, the application cannot be entertained.  Such review power is available under Section 22-A to Hon’ble National Commission.  Secondly, even if we considered the provision of Section 13 sub Section 4 read with Regulation no.26 (1) of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, it provides only limited application of Code of Civil Procedure.  It does not provide for application of Order 9 rule 4, 9 or 13 to be followed by Consumer Fora.  This is a case to be considered under Order 9 rule 13 for setting aside and/or recalling the order which are passed on merit.  We do not find such power is vested with State Commission.  These provisions are not applicable to the consumer Fora as held by the Apex court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/s. R.Srinivasan, 2000 DGLS (Soft) 426.  Thus, the present application is not maintainable.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                                :-ORDER-:  

1.       Application for restoration of A.Nno. 2007/31 stands rejected.

2.       Parties to bear their own costs.

3.       Dictated on dais.

4.       Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.