State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hareshkumar Krushnkant Pandya vs Accurate Moto (Gujarat) Pvt Ltd on 30 April, 2022
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 30 04 2022
Date of filing 31 03 2022
Duration 30 Days.
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD
COURT NO: 04
Review Application No. 12 of 2022
Hareshkumar Krushnalal Pandya,
"Matangi Krupa"
3-Laxminagar, Nanamava Main road,
Rajkot-360004. ...Appellant.
V/s
Accurate Moto (Guj) Pvt. Ltd.
Kuwadva Road, Opp. Sadguru Ashram,
Rajkot - 360003. ...Respondent.
==========================================================
BEFORE: Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.
APPEARANCE: Mr. J.K. Pandya, L.A. for applicant. ========================================================== ORAL ORDER: (By Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member)
1. The respondent in Appeal No. 388/2019 has filed present Review Application under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (herein after referred to as the 'C.P. Act').
2. Read Review Application of respondent in Appeal No. 388/2019 wherein following points have been raised by the applicant:
મહે. રાજકોટ જીલ્લા ગ્રાહક તકરાર નિવારણ ફોરમ સમક્ષિા ફરીયાદ િં .૪૫૪/૨૦૧૯ િા કામેિો તારીખઃ ૨૯- ૦૫-૨૦૧૯ િો હુ કમ ન્યાયી અિે વ્યાજબી હોવા છતાં , ગેરસમજ કે સામાવાળાિી ગેરરજુ આતથી દોરવાઈ જે હુ કમ કરેલ છે તે અન્યાયી અિે િામ. ઉચ્ચત્તર અિે ઉચ્ચત્તમ ન્યાયલયોિાં નિણણયો કે હુ કમોિી ઉપરવટ કે ખોટા અથણસભરિો એટલે કે મીસ રીડીંગ ઓફ રોંગ ફુલ વે િો તથા રેકડણ પરિી મોજુ દ હકકકતો, આધાર-પૂરાવાઓ કે ન્યાયીક નિણણયો નવરૂધ્ધિો છે . તેવું અમારૂં િમ્ર માિવું છે .
આપ મહે. ગુજરાત રાજય ગ્રાહક તકરાર નિવારણ પંચે તા.૩૦-૦૯-૨૦૨૧ િો જે કરેલ છે તે, મારૂનત ઉદ્યોગ હુ કમ નવરૂધ્ધ અતુલ ભારદ્વાજ તેમજ અન્યોિા કેસમાં અપાયેલ નિણણયોિી નવગતે , જે માં ૧૦-માસમાં દસ-વખત વાહિ રીપેરીંગ માટે મુકવા છતાં ફોલ્ટ દૂર કરાયેલ િહીં, અિે વાહિ ૪૦-હજાર કક.મીટર ચાલેલ, તે ધ્યાિે લઈ જે સુધારા હુ કમ કરેલ છે તે અન્યાયી અિે રેકોડણ પરિા મોજુ દ આધાર પૂરાવા અિે દલીલ, રજુ આતો તેમજ ઉચ્ચત્તમ ન્યાયાલયોિા ન્યાયીક નિણણયો નવરૂધ્ધ છે . કારણ કે અમારૂં વાહિ સામાવાળાએ બદલી આપયું કે તુતણજ ફોલ્ટી જણાયેલ . આમ ટુંકા કદવસોમાં વાહિ ફોલ્ટી હોવા છતાં , ચલાવવા મજબુર બિેલ અિે તે વાહિમાં ફકત ર-ફ્રી સર્વણસ થયેલ અિે ફકત ૨૦૩૩ કક.મીટર ચાલેલ. આમ, વાહિિા સમયિો ઉપયોગ ગાળો તેમજ વપરાયેલ કકલોમીટરમાં ખુબજ મોટો તફાવત હોવા છતાં તે ધ્યાિે િ લઈ જે સુધારા હુ કમ કરાયેલ છે તે અન્યાયી અિે ગેરવ્યાજબી છે .Page 1 of 6
R.I. DESAI RA/12/2022 અમો અરજદારિું વાહિ આપ મહે. સ્ટેટ કનમશિિા તા.૩૦-૦૯-૨૦૨૧ િા હુ કમથી લઈ આજરોજ તારીખ :
૩૧-૦૩-૨૦૨૨ િા રોજિી નસ્થનતએ કુલ ૧૨૧૦-કદવસિી નસ્થનતએ વાહિ પડતર અિે િોિયુઝ રહેલ છે . તે કોઈપણ સંજોગોમાં હાલિી નસ્થનતએ ચાલુ રહી િ શકે કે હોઈ િ શકે . કારણ કે વાહિિા પાટણસ તેમજ અન્ય સાધિોિે ૪-વર્ણ સુધી ગરમી-ઠંડી-વરસાદ નવગેરે ઋતુિી અસર થાય જ. તેિા પાટણસ પણ કટાઈ જવા પામે છે . તેવા સંજોગોમાં, "વાહિ રોડ વધી નસ્થનતમાં સેટીસ્ફેકટરી સટી. લઈ સોંપવા જણાવવું" તે હકકકત તદિ ગેરવ્યાજબી, ગેરકાયદેસર અિે અન્યાયી કહેવાય. આ કારણોસર પણ મહે. રાજકોટ જીલ્લા ગ્રાહક તકરાર નિવારણ ફોરમિો તારીખઃ ૨૯-૦૫-૨૦૧૯ િો હુ કમ ન્યાયી અિે કાયદેસરિો હતો / છે તેવું અમારૂં િમ્ર માિવું છે .
મહે. રાજકોટ જીલ્લા ગ્રાહક તકરાર નિવારણ ફોરમિો ફરીયાદ િં .૪૫૪/૨૦૧૭ િો તારીખ : ૨૯-૦૫-૨૦૧૯ િો હુ કમ રેકડણઝ અિે અન્ય આધાર-પૂરાવા, દલીલો, રજુ આતો જોતાં ન્યાયી અિે કાયદેસર ઠરાવી તે હુ કમ કાયમ રાખી આપ િામ. સ્ટેટ કમીશિિો તારીખ : ૩૦-૦૯-૨૦૨૧ િો સુધારા પૂરતો હુ કમ ન્યાયિા નહતમાં રદ કરવા અિે અમારી રીવ્યુ અરજી સંપૂણણ રીતે માન્ય રાખવા િમ્ર અરજ છે .
ન્યાયિા નવશાળ નહતમાં જે કોઈ જાતિી દાદ / દાદો આપી/ અપાવી શકાય તે તે તમામ ઉંચી કોસ્ટ સાથે આપવા / અપાવવા િમ્ર અરજ છે .
આ કામેિી મુળ અપીલ િંબર : ૩૮૮/૨૦૧૯ િા કામે અરજન્ટ સુિવણી માટેિા આધારો લક્ષમાં લઈ કાયણવાહી ઝડપથી હાથ ધરી પૂણણ કરાયેલ, નસ્થનત સંજોગોમાં હાલ પણ કોઈપણ જાતિા ફેરફારો િ હોય, તે અપીલ સમયે રજુ કરાયેલ દરેક આધાર-પૂરાવાઓ અિે તે અિુસંધાિેિા હુ કમો લક્ષમાં લઈ આ રીવ્યુ અરજી ન્યાયિા નહતમાં તાત્કાલીક સાંભળી તાકીદે આખરી નિણણય થવા િમ્ર અરજ છે .
3. Applicant has submitted a written argument which is on record at page no. 24 wherein it has been submitted that this Commission has passed the order without taking into considered the vital documents, judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Courts and relevant record produced in this case which caused injustice to the applicant herein. Furthermore it is submitted that this is a fit case to allow the present Review application as the order passed by this Commission contains certain omissions and irregularities which resulted injustice to the applicant which has to be looked into by this Commission by allowing the present Review Application in the wide interest of justice.
4. In support of his argument ld. Advocate for the applicant has submitted D.E. List along with following judgments:
(I) IV (2012) CPJ 184 (NC) - Ajay Gautam Vs. Amritsar Eye Clinic & Ors. (II) II (2017) CPJ 26 (Comp. AT) - Binani Cement Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India & Anr.
IV (2012) CPJ 184 (NC) :- The power of review has been conferred on this Commission by virtue of section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which inter alia lays down that without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 22, the National Commission shall have the power to review the order made by it if there is any error apparent on the face of the record. This would clearly mean that review of an order passed by this Commission is permissible if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and for no other ground. The Civil Courts and the High Courts by virtue of section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure have the power to review its order on a number of other grounds mentioned therein besides on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Similarly, the power of High Court to review its order is not circumscribed only to the ground of apparent on the face of the record and review can be sought and granted for several reasons.
Page 2 of 6R.I. DESAI RA/12/2022 In view of the above observation it is crystal clear that under Section 40, Section 50 and Section 60 of the C.P. Act, 2019 in Consumer Commissions, the review is only permissible in case if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and for no other ground.
II (2017) CPJ 26 (Comp. AT) :- As the said Judgment was delivered by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi wherein scope of CPC, 1908 has been discussed but as per section 50 of the C.P. Act, 2019 the State Commission have power to review any order on only one ground i.e. if there is an error apparent on the face of record. Scope of Review:
5. It will be 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-
(a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) 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."
6. Considering Section 50 of the Act and order 47 Rule (1) of the CPC, 1908 there are three grounds under the order 47 Rule 1, 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, Page 3 of 6 R.I. DESAI RA/12/2022 Merits of the case:-
7. In the present Review Application it is the main contention of the applicant that Hon'ble Commission has committed a serious error in partly allowing the appeal and therefore, the impugned order of the Hon'ble Commission deserves to be reconsidered by reviewing the order.
8. As per Section 50 of C.P. Act, 2019, 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. In this review application, applicant has submitted the contentions which are used in appeal remedy.
9. In the review application Applicant has submitted so many points which are only disagreement with the order of Appeal no. 388/2019 but in review jurisdiction mere disagreement that the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same and the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise.
10. This Commission come across the following judgments wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down ratio on scope of review by the Court.
(A) 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 hereunder:-
"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 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 orArticle 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier Page 4 of 6 R.I. DESAI RA/12/2022 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.
(B) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 674: Northern India Caterers (India vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi dated 21.12.1979.
8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this 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. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.(1) For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment. G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta.(2) 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. O. N. Mahindroo v. Distt.Judge Delhi &Anr.(2) Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Art. 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Art.
145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility."ChandraKanta v. Sheikh Habib.
9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to appear for the respondent, was never brought to our attention when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Page 5 of 6R.I. DESAI RA/12/2022 (C) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in KamleshVerma 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."
From the above observation of Hon'ble Apex Courts, it is crystal clear that the review petition cannot be an appeal remedy as the scope of review is very limited.
11. In view of the above discussion in depth in the opinion of this Commission review application filed by the applicant cannot be considered and therefore, following final order is passed.
ORDER
1. Review application No. 12/2022 is hereby dismissed.
2. Order dated 30.09.2021 passed in the Appeal No. 388/2019 is hereby confirmed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this order to the respective parties.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 30th April, 2022.
[Dr. J.G. Mecwan]
Presiding Member
Page 6 of 6
R.I. DESAI RA/12/2022