State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Vinod Kumar Agrawal on 22 January, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Misc. Case (Review) 80/2010
Instituted on : 20.12.2010
Tata Motors Finance Limited.
Mittal Complex, Ground Floor,
Near Ghanshyam Chamber, Vyapar Vihar Road,
Bilaspur (C.G) ... Applicant
Vinod Kumar Agrawal,
S/o Shri Dhwajaram Agrawal,
Near Ganga Nursing Home,
Jagatpur, Raigarh, Tah. & Dist. Raigarh (C.G) ...Non-applicant.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Prabhat Pradhan, for applicant.
ORAL ORDER
Dated: 22/01/2011
PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This is an application for amending the order passed by this Commission in Appeal No.246/2009 on 19/11/2010.
2. The contention of learned counsel for applicant is that earlier the lower Fora in order dated 30/1/2008 has disallowed Rs.16,000/- which were included by the appellant as legal expenses and later on same District Forum corrected its mistake by order dated 30/1/2008 substituting Rs.16,000/- by another figure of Rs.1,600/-.
// 2 //
3. It has been submitted by the counsel for applicant that in order passed by this Commission vide order dated 19/11/2010 in Appeal No.246/2009, earlier figure mentioned in the order of the District Forum was considered and not the amended figure and therefore, a prayer has been made to modify the order passed by this Commission in the aforesaid appeal on 19/11/2010.
4. The prayer made by counsel for the applicant requires reconsideration of the entire facts of the case in the light of another order passed by the District Forum for amending its earlier order. Thereby, it will amount reviewing our own order passed in the case, which has already been decided. After decision in the appeal, this Commission has become functus officio. So far as reviewing our earlier order is concerned, we do not enjoy any such power of review. The mistake as pointed out by the applicant does not come in the category of arithmetical or clerical mistake, because it requires reconsideration of facts of the case and order of the District Forum.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this being an application for review of our earlier order, is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. The remedy to applicant lies in filing appeal before Hon'ble National Commission, if so advised.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra)
President Member
/01/2011 /01/2011