State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Naresh Kuamr Agarwal vs Sh. Siddarth Ahluwalia, Manager, ... on 18 November, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 28 / 2022
Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal S/o late Sh. Hansraj Agarwal
R/o D-18, Industrial Area, Haridwar
Tehsil and District Haridwar
...... Revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia
Manager, Divine Honda, Industrial Area
Haridwar, District Haridwar
2. Manager, Divine Automotives Pvt. Ltd.
Mohabbewala, Saharanpur Road
Dehradun, District Dehradun
3. Manager, Honda Cars India Ltd.
Tapukara, District Alwar, Rajasthan
...... Opposite Parties
Sh. Maneesh Hatwal, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 18/11/2022
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short "The District Commission") in Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022; Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Authorised Signatory and Manager, Divine Honda and another Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and another. By the impugned order, the District Commission has allowed the miscellaneous application and recalled / set aside its judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 passed in 2 consumer complaint No. 119 of 2020; Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and others and restored the consumer complaint at its original number, fixing 06.09.2022 for arguments.
2. We have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel no need to issue notice to the opposite parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that revisionist - complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission, being consumer complaint No. 119 of 2020; Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and others, which came to be decided by the District Commission per judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, thereby allowing the consumer complaint and directing the opposite parties to the consumer complaint to pay sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses and counsel fee.
4. The perusal of record reveals that after passing of judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, a restoration application was moved before the District Commission by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to the original consumer complaint on 08.06.2022, which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022; Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Authorised Signatory and Manager, Divine Honda and another Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and another, whereby prayer was made for reviewing the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 and granting 3 an opportunity of hearing to the applicants of the said application (opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 herein).
5. Vide impugned order dated 02.08.2022, the District Commission has allowed the Miscellaneous Application, thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 passed in consumer complaint No. 119 of 2020; Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and others. Aggrieved, the revisionist (original complainant) has preferred this revision petition.
6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Commission shows that the District Commission has taken shelter of the provisions contained in Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
7. As per Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District 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. Here, it is worth noting that under the provisions of the Act, no power has been conferred upon the District Commission to recall its order. Since the District Commission is not vested with the power to recall its order, the District Commission has travelled beyond the jurisdiction so vested in it by law and has erred in allowing the miscellaneous application per impugned order, which can not be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the revision petition deserves to be allowed.
48. Revision Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside and Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022 is rejected, being not maintainable. No order as to costs.
9. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K