State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Ltd. Rep. ... vs Sri Biswanath Biswas on 13 June, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Miscellaneous Application No. MA/45/2019 ( Date of Filing : 21 Feb 2019 ) In First Appeal No. A/1025/2015 1. M/s. Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Ltd. Rep. by, its authorized signatory Sri Gyan Prakash Pathak. Kol. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Biswanath Biswas kol. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Souri Ghosal, Advocate For the Respondent: In- Person., Advocate Dated : 13 Jun 2019 Final Order / Judgement
Order no. 14 date: 13-06-2019 Record is put up today for passing order in respect of MA/45/2019 being filed by the Appellant.
By such petition, it is submitted by the Appellant that, in terms of the solemn order of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP/3275/2016, it paid Rs. 50,000/- to the sole Respondent and the same has also been encashed by the recipient. Accordingly, the observation of this Commission that the Appellant did not pay the due cost was not correct. Accordingly, it prayed for due rectification of the said order.
On closer scrutiny of the order sheets, it transpires that the Appellant indeed paid due cost on 14-11-2018. On the face of it, it is quite apparent that there exists a prima facie error in the impugned order.
Now, let us decide whether we have got any right to correct the palpable mistake that has inadvertently crept in the said order.
It seems, the power of review by a Court/Tribunal is an essential feature of the Rule of Law. It is an established procedure that allows Courts/Tribunals to review orders or judgments passed by subordinate Courts/Tribunals or the same Courts/Tribunals, if there exists a prima facie error of law and/or a miscarriage of justice.
It is trite that if an error is not self-evident and its detection requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record.
In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors, 1980 Supp SCC 420, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "review" is used in two distinct senses. First, procedural review, which is either inherent or implied in a Court or a Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it. Second, review on merits, when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. The Hon'ble Court further held that, when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power is inherent in every Court or Tribunal.
In view of this, MA stands allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
Fix 15-07-2019 for hearing of Appeal. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER