State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Patiala vs M/S Jagan Nath Sadhu Ram on 21 May, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.1008 of 2014
In
First Appeal No.870 of 2013
Date of institution : 15.05.2014
Date of decision : 21.05.2014
State Bank of Patiala, The Mall, Goniana Mandi through its Branch
Manager.
.......Applicant-Appellant
Versus
M/s Jagan Nath Sadhu Ram, Commission Agent, Goniana Mandi
through its Sole Proprietor Shri Sadhu Ram s/o Shri Jagan Nath, r/o
Goniana Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda.
......Respondent-Complainant
Misc. Application for recalling the order
dated 5.5.2014.
Quorum :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the applicant-appellant : Shri Ravish Bansal, Adv. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This application has been filed by the applicant/appellant for recalling the order dated 5.5.2014. It has been averred therein that the case was listed for payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- imposed for condoning the delay of 5 days and when it's counsel reached the Court premises at 12.20 P.M. to attend the case the court proceedings were over and when he enquired the status of the case from the Reader, he was informed that the case had been dismissed Misc. Application No.1008 of 2014 2 In First Appeal No.870 of 2013.
as beyond limitation, in his absence. His non-appearance on the date fixed was not intentional nor wilful and he was willing and ready to pay the costs. In fact, he was held up in an urgent matter in the Hon'ble High Court and on that account got late in reaching this Commission.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and have gone through the records of the case.
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant- appellant that according to Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") the provisions of Section 12, 13 and 14 for the disposal of complaints by the District Forums are applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission, with such modifications as may be required. According to the proviso to Section 12(3), the complaint cannot be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant. By virtue of these provisions the appeal could not have been rejected by this Commission without giving an opportunity to the applicant- appellant to present its case. Therefore, the order dated 5.5.2014 is liable to be recalled.
4. The provisions of the Act, so referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, are applicable to the proceedings in the complaints and not to the proceedings in the appeals. He cannot make use of those provisions for making a prayer for the recalling of the order. No such power to recall its order has been conferred upon this Commission by the Act. The position has been made clear by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was Misc. Application No.1008 of 2014 3 In First Appeal No.870 of 2013.
held in "Rajiv Hitendra v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & anr." IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) that neither the State Commission nor District Forum has, under the provisions of the Act, the power to review/recall/modify an order passed by it. That proposition of law was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Lucknow Development Authority v. Shyam Kapoor" 2013(1) CPR 597 (SC).
5. As no such power is vested with the Commission to recall its own order, so the application is hereby dismissed.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER May 21, 2014.
Bansal