Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Smt. Vijayshree Yadav vs Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd on 9 August, 2021

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                                        ORDER RESERVED ON: 02.08.2021
                                     ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 09.08.2021
                     REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 11/2021

     IN THE MATTER OF

     SMT. VIJAYSHREE YADAV                   .....APPLICANT/PETITIONER

                                     VERSUS

     PARAMOUNT PROPBUILD PVT. LTD.                          ....RESPONDENT

     CORAM:

     HON'BLE       DR.    JUSTICE       SANGITA       DHINGRA         SEHGAL
     (PRESIDENT)
     HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
     Present: Mr. Vaibhav Mehra, Counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner.

     PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
              PRESIDENT
                                JUDGMENT

[Via Video Conferencing]

1. Vide the present application Smt. Vijayshree Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant") seeks review of the judgment dated 05.05.2021, passed by this Commission in FA-20/2021 titled Smt. Vijayshree Yadav vs. Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., whereby, it was held as under:

"6. During the pendency of the Probate Proceedings, the Appellant in her individual capacity, moved a Complaint against the Respondent alleging Deficiency of Service before the District Forum. However, the parties were referred to Mediation and a settlement was arrived at between the Appellant and the Respondent. Here, it is pertinent to mention RA-11/2021 Page 1 of 3 that since the Probate Proceedings are still pending before the Competent Court, the Appellant is only entitled to half of the share in the property, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Hence, no compromise can be entered into by the Appellant on behalf of her deceased husband until and unless the Probate Proceedings are concluded.

7. Consequently, we hold that the Settlement entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent cannot be executed till the Probate Proceedings are decided in favour of the Appellant. "

2. The Applicant has sought review of the aforesaid judgment on the following ground:

i. That this Commission did not take into consideration the fact that an application for withdrawal of the Complaint Case was pending before the District Commission, which was not adjudicated by the District Commission while passing its judgment dated 09.02.2021, vide which the proceedings before the District Commission were stayed till the outcome of the Probate Case.

3. The Counsel for the applicant has relied upon section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which confers the State Commission with the power to Review its own orders under. The said provision has been reproduced below:

"Section 50. Review by State Commission in certain cases.

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."

4. Undoubtedly, the commission has the power to review its order only if there is any mistake/error apparent on the face of the record.

5. The appeal was decided on merits as is evident from para 1 of this order, wherein the relevant portion of the judgment dated 05.05.2021 has been reproduced. The applicant, in the present application has failed to point out the error apparent on record, as there is none. In fact, under the garb of the present Review Application, the Applicant is actually seeking a re-hearing of the First Appeal that was decided on merits on 05.05.2021, which is impermissible. The purpose of a Review Application is fairly limited and it cannot be used as a tool to reargue what has already been decided.

6. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.05.2021, she is at liberty to seek appropriate legal recourse. Consequently, the present Review Application stands dismissed.

7. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

8. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On:

09.08.2021 RA-11/2021 Page 3 of 3