Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/10/2023

MR. GULSHAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA

10 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Review Application No. In A/164/2023	:	10 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	19.12.2023
Date of Decision	:	10.01.2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

1]       Mr. Gulshan Kumar S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, House No.104, Sun Shine Avenue, Backside GNDU Campus, Ladhe Wali Road, Jalandhar – 144007.

2]       Mrs. Saran Preet W/o Mr. Gulshan Kumar Lal, House No.104, Sun Shine Avenue, Backside GNDU Campus, Ladhe Wali Road, Jalandhar– 144007.

……Applicants/Appellants/Complainants.

Versus

1]       Worldwide  Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.), SCO 2415-16, Near Aroma Hotel, Sector 22C, Chandigarh through its Director.

2]       Worldwide  Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.), Head Office: A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali through its Director.

3]       M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, C/o Worldwide  Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali through its Director.

…..Non-applicants/Respondents/Opposite parties

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

                  

Argued by:-

 

Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the applicant/appellants.

                    

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER.

                   This Review application has been filed by the applicants/appellants/complainants under the provisions of Section 50 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking review of order dated 07.11.2023 vide which Appeal No.164 of 2023 filed by the applicants/appellants was dismissed by this Commission.

2.                After hearing the Counsel for the applicants/appellants at the preliminary stage and going through the record, we are of the considered view that this review application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

3.                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:

(A) 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."

 

(B) Order 47 Rule (1) of the CPC, 1908:

"(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

1. by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

 

2. by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

 

 

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."

 

4.                A bare perusal of the above makes it abundantly clear that there are three grounds under the Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under:

“(i) The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made,

(ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record 

(iii) for any other sufficient reason”

5.                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.  The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. 

6.                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.

 

7.                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."

 

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.                While dismissing the appeal, whatever observed by this Commission in the order dated 07.11.2023 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, this review application bearing No.10 of 2023 filed by the appellants is not tenable. The remedy lies with the applicants/appellants to challenge the order before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

10.              As such, the review application is dismissed being not tenable.

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

12.              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

10.01.2024.

 

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad