State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Godrej Agrovet Ltd vs Shri. Shail Siddhappa Koli & Ors. on 24 April, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/10/163 in RP No.09/65
1.GODREJ AGROVET LTD EASTERN EXPRESS HIGH WAY VIKROLI MUMBAI ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI. SHAIL SIDDHAPPA KOLI R/O KANBUS TALUKA SAOUTH SOLAPUR DIST SOLAPUR
2. GURUNATH S. KARAJAGIKAR/SHETEAPPA S. KARAJAGIKAR 35A, MANGALWAR PETH (E.) SOLAPUR
3.SHIVAMMABAI DHONDAPPA BORUTE AHERWADI, TAL. SOUTH SOLAPUR SOLAPUR
4.BAHUBALI NANCHAND MEHTA/PRAKASH BAHUBALI MEHTA UDAGI, TAL. AKKALKOT SOLAPUR
5.SATISH GURUSAIDDHAPPA PRACHANDE NAGANSUR, TAL. AKKALKOT SOLAPUR
6. PRABHAKAR GURUSHANT PHUNDIPALLE AHERWADI, TAL. SOUTH SOLAPUR SOLAPUR
7. SUVARNA MALLIKARJUNA BAMMANAGE AHERWADI, TAL. SOUTH SOLAPUR SOLAPUR
8. BABU GURANNA MALI AHERWADU, TAL. SOUTH SOLAPUR SOLAPUR
9. BIRAPPA NINGAPPA PUJARI NAWIDAGI, TAL. AKKALKOT SOLAPUR
10. NAGNATH PRABHANNA CHIVADSHETTY KANBUS, TAL. SOUTH SOLAPUR SOLAPUR
11. BAHAR AGROCHEM & FEEDS PVT.LTD.
E-24,MIDC INDUSTRIAL AREA, LOTE PARSHURAM, TAL.KHED RATNAGIRI
12.SHRI MAHALAKSHMI KRUSHI BHANDAR AKKALKOT RAILWAY STATION, KADABGAON, TAL. AKKALKOT SOLAPUR ...........Respondent(s) ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the applicant.
ORAL ORDER Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member By this order, we are disposing of this misc. application filed for restoration of Revision Petition which has been dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance.
This application has been filed for restoration, it means the applicant want us to review our own order and quash and set aside the order passed by us dismissing this appeal for default. Under Section 22 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, power of review is available only to the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Such power is not vested in us by the Act of Parliament in any other provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, the power of review or power to set aside the ex-parte order are given only to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 22(2) and 22-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no such power either of review or setting aside the order of dismissal passed by this Commission either in appeal or Revision or in Complaint is vested in us.
Whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has got power of review was the issue involved in the Civil Appeal No.4307/2007 in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. V/s. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, wherein the Apex Court clearly held that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have no power of review or power to set aside the ex-parte order and it is vested only with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 22(2) and 22-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Honble Apex Court in Para 36 observed as under :-
36. On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex-parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.
In the case of Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Others V/s. Bombay Hospital Trust (1999) 4 SCC 325, the Honble Apex Court clearly held that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside its previous ex-parte order, more so, if it is a reasoned order and action of State Commission was not one permissible under the law.
In the light of these two rulings of the Honble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that this application filed for setting aside the dismissal order passed in the Revision Petition, is not tenable in law and as such we pass the following order :-
-:
ORDER :-
1.
Misc. Application No.163/2010 is rejected in view of rulings of the Apex Court.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 24th April 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd