State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sachin Khandekar vs Mr. Dipankar Bhattacherjee on 4 March, 2024
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI-GOA
In the matter of Review Application 28 of 2023 in Consumer
Complaint 43 of 2018.
Before: Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President
Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member
Shri Sachin Vasant Khandekar,
s/o Shri Vasant Khandekar,
Flat no. E/1, 4th Floor,
Anand Residency, Chicalim Goa. .....Applicant
V.
Mr. Dipanker Bhattacherjee,
S/o late Shri. Krishna Kumar Bhattacherjee,
R/o. TF-2, Merrylane Altura,
Behind Chicalim Ground,
Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa. .....Respondent
Adv. Shri. G. Korgaonkar present for Applicant.
DATE: 04/03/2024
ORDER
[per Smt. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President]
1. This Application has been filed by the Applicant for Review/Correction of the Judgment and Order dated 13/10/2023 passed by this Commission in C.C. No. 43/2018. The Applicant was the Opposite Party. The Respondent was the Complainant in the Consumer Complaint.
12. The present Application is filed under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and it has been titled as an Application for Review of the Judgment and Order. The Applicant seeks a relief to be granted in order to review the said Judgment and Order.
3. The Applicant stated in the said Application that the Respondent had filed Complaint against the Applicant before this Commission and that the Judgment and Order is passed by this Commission without considering the documents produced on record. He further stated that the construction of the flat was complete in all respect and ensured that the same is kept ready for occupation within a period of 24 months with three months grace. The Impugned Order is passed without considering that the MPDA, Vasco was not functioning. Also, that the Impugned Order is passed without considering that the delay is not intentional but beyond his control or unavoidable or inevitable circumstances which prevented him from obtaining Completion Certificate. The Applicant prayed to Review the Judgment & Order and to quash and set aside the operative part of the Order dated 13/10/2023 of Rs.50,000/- compensation and Rs.25,000/- cost to be paid to the Complainant.
4. Heard Adv. G. Korgaonkar for Applicant.
5. We have gone through the material on record and also arguments advanced by Adv. for Applicant. That the Application filed before this Commission is for Review. But the points raised seem to appear points for Appeal.
2This clearly shows that the Applicant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by this Commission on 13/10/2023 and the said points raised are not fit for Review.
6. That the Review Application ought to point out an erroneous decision and therefore is not permissible to address points for an Appeal. It is well settled principle that Review Petition is not, by way of an Appeal and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Sec. 50 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. The Application under review is to be filed only if there is a technical error. Here, we have noted that the Applicant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order. The Applicant has remedy to file Appeal before the Hon'ble National Commission against the Judgment and Order passed by this Commission. But instead the Applicant preferred filing the Review Application which is not at all permissible u/s 50 of Consumer Protection Act 2019; as the contents of the Application are purely the grounds taken for Appeal and not for Review.
7. That the Applicant has not made out any such ground within the scope of Sec. 50 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, so as to allow the Review Application.
8. That on perusing the file, we found no error apparent on the face of the record in the present Order dated 13/10/2023.
9. Therefore in view of the above we pass the following:
3ORDER The Application dated 09/11/2023 is dismissed at the admission stage with no Order as to Costs.
[Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale] Officiating President [Adv. Ms. Rachna A. M. Gonsalves] Member SN 4