R.A. No.03 of 2024 in
F.A. No.1158 of 2017
Present: Mr. M.K. Sood, counsel for the revisionist.
There is a delay of 70 days in filing of Review Application and to condone the same; an application has been filed. In interest of justice, application is allowed for reasons stated therein and delay of 70 days in filing of this Review Application stand condoned. Application for condonation of delay is disposed of.
2. The revisionist has filed this Review Application No.03 of 2024 to seek review or order/judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by this Commission vide which appeal of revisionist was dismissed and order dated 29.08.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Faridabad has been upheld.
3. Learned District Consumer Commission in its order dated 29.08.2017 has fastened liability upon, jointly and severally, upon revisionist who was OP No.2 and upon New India Insurance Co. Ltd. who was OP No.3 in those proceedings. This order dated 29.08.2017 has attained finality at legal pedestal, on dismissal of appeal No.1158 of 2017 of revisionist through order dated 31.10.2023 passed by this Commission. Revisionist’s counsel has urged that order dated 31.10.2023 is erroneous. Application for additional evidence was filed by appellant/revisionist vide which, appellant was covered by Policy No.041281/46/11/35/0000932 from 11.01.2012 to 10.01.2013. This application was allowed by State Commission vide its order dated 16.01.2023. In view of this fact, as per contention, order dated 31.10.2023 of this Commission is required to be reviewed on the aspect of satisfying the liability, if any, qua revisionist/appellant, towards complainant.
4. In firm opinion of this Commission order dated 31.10.2023 passed by this Commission can not be reviewed on the basis of above contention put forward by learned counsel for revisionist. Reason is obvious. Review of order on basis of above contention would totally change the integral part of order dated 29.08.2017 passed by learned District Commission-Faridabad which has been upheld in appeal No.1158 of 2017 decided on 31.10.2023 by this Commssion. Core of relief granted to complainant, as well as aspect of satisfying the liability towards complainant by OPs No. 2 & 3 would also change majestically. Palpably, it is visible that through filing of this review application, the revisionst is intending to re-open the process of appeal No. 1158 of 2017 already decided on 31.10.2023 so as to get a fresh hearing and decision on merits, which is legally not permissible. If there is any legal erreor, as per contention of learned counsel for revisionist in order dated 31.10.2023, then nothing stopped revisionist to assail the legality of order dated 31.10.2023 before Higher Court by filing appeal/revision as per law, which admittedly has not been done. This being so, this Review application No.3 of 2024, sans merit and thus dismissed. File be consigned to record room to be tagged along with F.A. No.1158 of 2017 decided on 31.10.2023.
