STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Revision Petition No.19 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution:01.12.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :03.03.2011

 SMt. Parmeshwari Sharma, Aged 64 years wife of Sh. O. P. Sharma resident of House No.B-66, HMT Colony, Pinjore, Distt. Panchkula.

……Petitioner.

V e r s u s

 The Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent.

BEFORE:            MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

                        Sh. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

                    This is a revision petition against order dated 6.10.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) dismissing the application moved by the complainant for review of the earlier order dated 10.11.2009 vide which the execution application of the petitioner was dismissed as fully satisfied.

2.                 The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the OPs claiming compensation on account of their medical negligence. The said complaint was allowed by the learned District Forum vide its order dated 13.11.2003 and a compensation of Rs.12 Lakhs was allowed. The payment was to be made by OPs No.2 to 6 within a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of the order failing which interest @6% per annum was to be paid on the unpaid amount. They were also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.                 The complainant filed an application for execution of the said order, which was taken up on 10.11.2009 when Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, Legal Assistant in the office of OPs tendered a cheque for Rs.15,34,699/- in favour of the complainant and also made a statement that an amount of Rs.25,000/- filed by them before this Commission while filing the appeal may also be given to the complainant. The cheque was delivered to Sh. Simranjit S. Chahal, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner who made a statement that the execution has been fully complied with and he did not press the execution petition. The execution application was accordingly dismissed as fully satisfied vide order dated 10.11.2009.

4.                 Subsequently, the present application was moved by the complainant/petitioner before the learned District Forum for review of the order dated 10.11.2009 alleging that some more amount was due to her on account of interest, which has not been paid and therefore, the execution application should not have been dismissed as satisfied. He prayed for review of the order dated 10.11.2009 and to issue process against the OPs to recover some more amount from them.

5.                 The application was taken up on 6.10.2010. The learned District Forum reproduced in the impugned order the statements made by the Legal Assistant of the OPs and the counsel for the Decree Holder/ petitioner. It was observed that since the District Forum has no jurisdiction to review its own orders, the application was dismissed. The complainant – petitioner has challenged the same through this revision petition.

6.                 A notice of the revision petition was issued to the OPs. Sh. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate appeared for the respondent.

7.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

8.                 Section 17(1)(b) of the Act provides as follows: -

17.             Jurisdiction of the State Commission. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)  xxx

(b)  to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any con­sumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

9.                 In order to succeed in this revision petition, it is necessary for the complainant to prove that the learned District Forum had the jurisdiction to review the previous order dated 10.11.2009 and the said jurisdiction was not exercised by it. His contention, however, is that though there is no such power under the Act clothing the Forum with the power to review its own orders yet the order being wrong on facts, it should have been set aside and reviewed by the learned District Forum. We do not find any merit in this argument. The learned District Forum has the power to pass right as well as wrong orders. However, even if it has passed a wrong order, it does not have any power to review the same and the remedy against the wrong order lies only with this Commission. Even if the order dated 10.11.2009 is presumed to be wrong, the learned District Forum could not set aside the same or review it to now pass a different order by starting the execution proceedings. The order passed by the learned District Forum is, therefore, perfectly legal and valid and we cannot hold that the learned District Forum was vested with the jurisdiction but has not exercised the same.

10.               The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 10.11.2009 was factually incorrect because the execution application was not satisfied on that date but it was consigned to record having been satisfied. It is interesting to note that the petitioner has not challenged the said order dated 10.11.2009 through this revision petition. The said order would, therefore, still sustain and in view of that, no further proceeding can be carried out to recover any further amount from the OPs.

11.               Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. The same, therefore, cannot be allowed. The order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly legal and valid. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

12.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

3^rd March 2011.

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Revision Petition No.19 of 2010)

Argued by:            Sh. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

                        Sh. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the respondent.

Dated the 3^rd day of March, 2011.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this revision petition has been dismissed.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)                                              (NEENA SANDHU)    

                MEMBER                                                            PRESIDING MEMBER