State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bayer India Limited vs Hari Chand Son Of Shri Mahla Ram on 23 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No. 2544 of 2009
In
First Appeal No. 907 of 2003
Date of institution : 21.08.2009
Date of decision : 23.12.2009
Bayer India Limited, Bayer Hour, Central Avenue, Hirnandni Garden Dhovi,
Mumbai through Sudershan Kumar, Zonal Controller and Administration
Manager.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Hari Chand son of Shri Mahla Ram, Village Chack Roran Wala @ Tambu
Wala, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. .......... Applicant/respondent
2. Subhash Chander Vijay Kumar 84, New Grain Market, Muktsar.
3. Arora Pesticides, Booth No. 53 New Grain Market, Muktsar.
4. Montari Industries Limited, New Delhi 110019.
5. Modern Agriculture Traders, 105-A, New Grain Market, Muktsar.
6. Hindustan Ciba Gaige Limited, 145, Tara Raod, Mumbai-400020
7. Jai Shri Rajasthan Udyog Limited, M-4, Aradhana Bhawan, Azadpur
Commercial Complex, Delhi-110033.
8. M/s Sandoz India Limited, Sandoz House, Dr. Ani Basant Road, Worli
Mumbai-400018.
......Respondents
Application for recalling the order dated 20.05.2009.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member This application has been received by post.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
This application has been filed by the applicant-respondent No. 1 for recalling the order dated 20.05.2009.
2. The facts are that the applicant-respondent had filed a complaint against respondents No. 2 to 8 and the appellants in F.A. No. 907 of 2003. In the said Misc. Application No.2544 of 2009 2 In First Appeal No. 907 of 2003 complaint it was alleged that the crops of the applicant-respondent No.1 were affected by the disease/insects. The insecticides/pesticides were purchased by the applicant from the dealer. These were sprayed on the crops and it failed to have any effect on the insects. As a result the crops were damaged. One of the insecticide was manufactured by the appellant in F.A. No. 907 of 2003. That complaint was accepted by the Learned District Forum, Muktsar vide order dated 17.10.2002 and the applicant-respondent was awarded some compensation.
3. The appellants had filed an appeal F.A. No. 907 of 2003 which was accepted by this Commission vide order dated 20.05.2009.
4. The present application has been filed by the applicant-respondent No. 1 for recalling the order dated 20.05.2009 and for re-deciding the appeal on merits.
5. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
6. There is no provision in the Act to recall or review the order passed by the State Commission on merits, although ex parte. This view was taken by this Commission in Misc. Application No.200 of 2008 in First Appeal No.477 of 2002 (Adarsh Kumar vs. Sukhraj Singh and others) decided on 31.3.2008 and also in the judgment reported as "Mansa & others vs. Sat Pal" 2009 C.T.J.1177 (CP) (SCDRC).
7. Section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") provides that the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face of record. Section 22A of the Act also provides that where an order is passed by the National Commission ex-parte against the opposite party or a complainant, as the case may be, the aggrieved party may apply to the Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice.
8. These provisions of Section 22(2) and 22A of the Act clearly reveal that the power of review and power of setting aside ex-parte orders on merits have been Misc. Application No.2544 of 2009 3 In First Appeal No. 907 of 2003 given by the Parliament in its wisdom only to the Hon'ble National Commission. No such power has been given to the State Commission.
9. Reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah and others versus Bombay Hospital Trust" 1999(1) Consumer Law Today 204 in which it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"7. We heard learned counsel on both sides for quite some time. When we asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to point out the provision in the Act, which enables the State Commission to set aside the reasoned order passed, though ex parte, he could not lay his hands on any of the provisions in the Act. As a matter of fact, before the State Commission the appellants brought to its notice the two orders, one passed by the Bihar State Commission in Chief Manager, UCO Bank vs. Ram Govind Agarwal, 1996(1) CPR 351 and the other passed by the National Commission in Director, Forest Research Institute vs. M/s Sunshine Enterprises and another, 1997(1) CPR 42, holding that the redressal agencies have no power to recall or review its ex parte order."
10. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission in its judgment reported as "Surinder Virgotra vs. Kanta Rani" 2004(2) Consumer Law Today 200.
11. Hon'ble National Commission in a latest judgment reported as "Rourkela Development Authority versus Saraswathi Beura" III(2007) CPJ 309 (NC) has held that under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the order can Misc. Application No.2544 of 2009 4 In First Appeal No. 907 of 2003 be reviewed by the Hon'ble National Commission only when the error apparently exists on the face of record.
12. In view of the discussion held above, the Misc. Application stands dismissed as not maintainable.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
December 23, 2009 (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
Rupinder MEMBER
(PIARE LAL GARG)
MEMBER