Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/1/2024

RAVI RANJAN KUMAR VERMA S/O SH. BIMAL KUMAR VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED THORUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VERMA

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Review Application No.	1 of 2024
In Consumer Complaint No.	93 of 2023
Date of Institution	11.03.2024
Date of Decision	03.09.2024

Ravi Ranjan Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Bimal Kumar Verma R/o Flat No. 2031, City of Dreams, SBP, Sector 116, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab, 140307.

                                   .…..Applicant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1]    SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED, Unit No. B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Managing Director.

Email Id:- group.sushma2005@gmail.com

2]    M/S BRAVIN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, Registered Office at SCO No. 2, Urban Plaza, Sushma Square, Village Gazipur, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab. Email Id:- group.sushma2005@gmail.com

3]    MANHATTAN INFRA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, Unit No. B- 107, 1^st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Managing Director/Director. Email Id:- binderpal@sushmabuildtech.com

…..Non-Applicants/Opposite Parties.

 

Review Application No.	2 of 2024
In Consumer Complaint No.	48 of 2023
Date of Institution	11.03.2024
Date of Decision	03.09.2024

Arpana Sood, aged 56 years, W/o Sh. Ishwar Dass Sood, Resident of House No. 5-G, Preet Nagar, Ambala, Haryana-133001.

                                   .…..Applicant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1]    SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED, Unit No. B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Managing Director.

Email Id:- group.sushma2005@gmail.com

2]    M/S BRAVIN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, Registered Office at SCO No. 2, Urban Plaza, Sushma Square, Village Gazipur, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab. Email Id:- group.sushma2005@gmail.com

3]    MANHATTAN INFRA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, Unit No. B- 107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Managing Director/Director. Email Id:- binderpal@sushmabuildtech.com

…..Non-Applicants/Opposite Parties.

 

 

Review Application No.	3 of 2024
In Consumer Complaint No.	49 of 2023
Date of Institution	11.03.2024
Date of Decision	03.09.2024

Shaminder Kaur, aged 56 years, D/o S. Malkiat Singh, Resident of House No. 12-B, New KV Quarters, PGT Chemistry, New Quarters, AFS, Ambala Cantt., Haryana, 133001.

                                   .…..Applicant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1]    SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED, Unit No. B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Managing Director.

Email Id:- group.sushma2005@gmail.com

2]    M/S BRAVIN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, Registered Office at SCO No. 2, Urban Plaza, Sushma Square, Village Gazipur, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab. Email Id:- group.sushma2005@gmail.com

3]    MANHATTAN INFRA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, Unit No. B- 107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Managing Director/Director. Email Id:- binderpal@sushmabuildtech.com

…..Non-Applicants/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                   SH. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

                  

 

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the applicant(s)/complainant(s).

Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate for the non-applicants/opposite parties.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   These review applications have been filed by the respective complainants (applicants herein) under the provisions of Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for review of common order dated 05.02.2024 passed by this Commission vide which Consumer Complaints bearing No.48 of 2023, 49 of 2023 and 93 of 2023 have been dismissed on merits of each case.

2]                In all the review applications, review of order dated 05.02.2024 has been sought on the ground that the actual physical possession has never been delivered to the respective complainants by opposite party No.1 and thus, the finding of this Commission that the possession has been taken by the complainants of their respective units since long that too without any protest and after taking over the possession, they have rented/leased out the same to the third party and receiving rental income out of the same, are incorrect. It has further been stated that there is an error apparent on record and does not require any reasoning to establish the point that the possession in the absence of conveyance/sale deed is not a valid possession and does not confer any right/title on the property and the allottee, in the absence of valid legal/actual/physical possession, does not confer with any right to enter into any GPA/SPA or Memorandum of Understanding and cannot put the property on rent without there being the ownership rights.

3]                Upon notice, the non-applicants/opposite parties appeared through Counsel and contested these review applications by filing their replies, wherein, the maintainability of these review applications have been challenged stating that the scope of review is limited one if there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the final order/judgment. To say so, reliance has been placed on the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘The State of Telangana & Ors. Versus Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.”, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.6937 of 2021 decided on 18.04.2024. It has further been stated that the grounds now raised for review have already been adjudicated upon by this Commission while dismissing the consumer complaints and these review applications are liable to be dismissed with punitive costs.

4]                After hearing the Counsel for the parties at length and going through the order under review and the record of all the three consumer complaints, we are of the considered opinion, that the review applications are liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here that seeking a review under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not an entitlement or a matter of right for the aggrieved party. The scope of such a review is narrowly defined and highly restricted. It is confined to situations where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, meaning the error must be obvious and not require a detailed examination of the facts or evidence. The review process is not intended for re-evaluating the case or reconsidering the evidence already presented. Instead, it is meant to address instances where a glaring mistake or oversight has occurred that is evident without delving deeply into the case's merits. Therefore, the scope of review is extremely limited and grounds for review are to be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they fall within the narrow parameters set by the law. This limitation emphasizes the finality of judgments and seeks to prevent the review process from being misused as a tool for endless litigation or delay tactics. However, in the instant applications, the applicants/complainants are attempting to seek a review on the merits by revisiting and re-examining the documentary evidence and the record of the case, which is not permissible under the purview of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which provides a very limited scope for review, strictly confined to identifying and correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record. As already stated above, this provision does not allow for a reassessment of the case's substantive aspects or a re-evaluation of the evidence already considered by the adjudicating authority. The purpose of this provision is to address, clear and self-evident mistakes, not to provide a platform for re-litigating issues that have already been thoroughly examined and decided upon. By attempting to delve back into the documentary evidence and records, the applicants/complainants are essentially seeking to reopen the cases on their merits, which go beyond the narrow and specific grounds for review contemplated under Section 50 ibid. This approach undermines the finality and certainty of legal decisions, which Section 50 is designed to uphold by restricting reviews to obvious and manifest errors only. Consequently, such an attempt to reargue the case on merits under the guise of a review is not permissible within the legal framework established by Consumer Protection Act 2019. We would also like to state that the scope of review under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, being strictly limited, has been consistently upheld by judicial authorities. In various judgments, Courts have reiterated that a review under Section 50 is not intended to be a substitute for an appeal, nor is it an opportunity for the parties to argue the case on its merits once again.

5]                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. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted here-under:-

"55. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of R.I. DESAI R.A. 15/21 following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.

6]                The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in 2013 (4) CTC 882 has held that the review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:

"15. Review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. In Review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the Review Jurisdiction."

 

7]                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”.

8]                While dismissing the consumer complaints, whatever observed by this Commission in the order dated 05.02.2024 is based upon the factual position on record. There is no apparent error on record and there is no need to review same. As such, all these review applications bearing No.1 of 2024, 2 of 2024 & 3 of 2024 filed by the complainants are not tenable. As such, all these review applications bearing No.1 of 2024,  2 of 2024 & 3 of 2024 are dismissed.

9]                Certified copy of this order be also placed in the files of RA/2/2024 & RA/3/2024.

10]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11]              Files be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

1.  

                                           [RAJESH  K.  ARYA]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                

 [PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

Ad