Shri Avinash V Prabhune, Member
Heard Ld Counsel & perused Application.
1) The Non Applicant (Original OP) had prayed for review of the order passed on 24.11.2022 by this commission confirming interim directions regarding restoration of water supply from bore well situated at Plot No 72. OP submitted that interim application was not finally decided by Commission. OP further submitted that Commission has not passed speaking order issues raised by OP about tenability of Complaint & point of resjudicata. The Non applicant submitted judgement passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of M/s. Rajpipla vs. M/s Magic Properties Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (Consumer complaint No. 91 of 2012 with IA/6217/2013) decided on dtd.04th October, 2013 to substantiated his claim for deciding preliminary objection in the matter.
2) It can be seen from the review application that Applicant had not pointed out any error or mistake appearing on the face of records from the impugned order dtd 27.10.2022 & 24.11.2022 to consider review application, on the contrary, this commission has passed order considering vital fact that Complainant was receiving water supply from the bore well situated at Plot No 72 since 01.02.2017 & OP had disconnected same without giving him any notice. Moreover, OP had restored supply as per order dtd 27.10.2022 of this Commission. The Electricity & Water supply is the basic essential requirement of every human being. OP cannot be permitted to disconnect water supply of Complainant as per her whims & without giving any notice of disconnection of water supply even if OP had any legal right in his favour for disconnection of water supply. OP’s contentions about applicability of the order dtd 19.08.2019 of SDO, Nagpur was also considered in detail while passing order. It was related to an incidence of disconnection effected by OP on 14.06.2019. Moreover, OP had also continued water supply to Complainant’s house from the bore well situated at Plot No 72. This Commission was of the firm opinion that the present dispute related disconnection of water supply on 14.10.2022 by OP was separate & not connected with the disconnection effected by OP on 14.06.2019; therefore, objection raised by OP on the point of Res-judicata was not maintainable. In view of the above discussion, judgement submitted by the non-applicant is not applicable and can be distinguished with reference to the facts of present case.
3) It is felt that if Applicant was not satisfied by the order dtd 27.10.2022 & 24.11.2022 then he had an opportunity to prefer Appeal against the said order before appropriate authority. The Applicant cannot be permitted to raise such issues through review application. It is settled position that scope of Review under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is extremely limited. In fact, Hon NCDRC had issued regulations for deciding Review Application as below ‘The Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020’, but still one opportunity of hearing was given to O.P. in the review matter although it was not required.
15. Review.-(1) It shall set out clearly the grounds for review.
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Consumer Commission, an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without oral arguments, as far as practicable between the same members who had delivered the order sought to be reviewed.
In view of the above discussions, present Application deserves to be rejected, hence rejected.
ORDER
1) Review Application dtd 28.12.2022 is rejected.
2) No order as to costs.
