Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/5/2024

AXIS BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNITA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

SAHIL SINGLA

14 May 2024

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Addl. Bench]

==========

 

Review Application No. in Appeal No.214 of 2023	:	RA/05/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	23/04/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	14/05/2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

Axis Bank, through its Manager/Branch Head, SCO          343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh – 160022.

…. Appellant

V E R S U S

 

1.     Sunita Devi w/o Late Sh.Jagdish Chand, now resident of H.No.630, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh (Previously resident of House No. 1032, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh).

 

…… Respondent/Applicant/Complainant 

 

2.     New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh - 160017.

 

3.     New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, Claim Hub, Mumbai Regional Office-I, 12^th Floor, New India Centre, 17/A, Cooperage Road, Mumbai – 400039.

 

4.     Chandigarh Electricity Department, through its Superintending Engineer, Electricity OP Circle, Sector 9, U.T. Secretariat, Chandigarh. 

 

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Sunil Narang, Adv. for Applicant/Complainant/ Respondent No.1

 

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

This Review application has been filed by the Applicant/Complainant – Smt. Sunita Devi under the provisions of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking review of order dated 27.03.2024, vide which, Appeal bearing No.214 of 2023 filed by the Appellant (Axis Bank) against the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint bearing No.262 of 2021, was accepted and consumer complaint qua Appellant (Axis Bank) has been dismissed and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) were directed to pay the claim amount to the Applicant/ Complainant.

 

2.         We have heard the Sh. Sunil Narang, Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Complainant and have also gone through the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection with his able assistance.

 

3.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant review application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

4.         Learned Counsel for the Applicant/ Complainant argued with vehemence that the Appellant (Axis Bank) and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) are jointly & severally liable to pay the claim amount to the Applicant/Complainant as it was the Appellant (Axis Bank) which entered into agreement with Respondent Nos.2 & 3 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) for giving insurance cover to salary account holders of the Respondent No.4 (Chandigarh Electricity Department) and thus, the consumer complaint cannot be dismissed qua the Appellant (Axis Bank). He has submitted that owing to the inter-se dispute among the Appellant (Axis Bank) and the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) the Complainant is suffering and did not get the claim amount till date.

 

5.         Needless to mention here that the issues raised now by means of present review application have already been dealt with in detail by this Commission in order dated 27.03.2024. It may be stated here that each Consumer Commission has been empowered to review its own order under the provisions of Sections 40, 50 and 60 of the Act. The power under the Statute is highly limited as compared to the powers of civil court to review its own orders under the provisions of Section 114 read with order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is beneficial to refer following provisions of law: -

 

Section 50 of the Act:- "The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order."

 

6.         In the light of aforesaid provision, the prayer of the Applicant/ Appellant to review order dated 27.03.2024 is misconstrued and misapplied inasmuch as Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers this Commission to review its order only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and we do not find any such apparent error on record. Therefore, this review application does not merit consideration.

 

7.         It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.  In Lilly Thomas v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute views.    

 

8.         From the above observation of Hon'ble Apex Courts, it is crystal clear that the power of review cannot be equated with the power of appeal as the scope of review is very limited.  Besides this, the scope of review under the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is highly limited and only to the extent of “an error apparent on the face of record”.

 

9.         Whatever observed by this Commission in the order dated 27.03.2024 is based upon the factual position on record. There is no any apparent error on record and there is no need to review same.

 

10.         For the reasons recorded above, this review application stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The remedy lies with the Applicant/ Complainant to challenge the order, as per law, if advised.

 

11.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

12.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

14^th May 2024                                                           

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”