State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prashant Anuprai Purohit vs Logic Academy Pvt Ltd on 28 November, 2023
Details DD MM YYYY
Date of Judgment 28 11 2023
Date of filing 03 01 2023
Duration 25 10 00
IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE
COURT NO.2
Review Application No. 07 of 2023
In Complain No. 226 of 2020
1. Prashant Anuprai Purohit,
2. Shri Umran Purohit
Both are residing at, 303,
Jeevandhan Flat,
Nr. Airport, Satellite Road,
Ahmedabad-380015. ...Appellant
VS
1. Logic Academy Pvt. Ltd.
Add: 1, Nehrunagar,
Opp. B.R.T.S.,
Satellite Road,
Ahmedabad- 380005. ...Respondent
APPEARANCE: For the Applicant: self
For the Respondent: Mr. J. N. Mehta/ Mr. P. V. Patel
CORUM: Hon‟ble Ms. Archana Raval, Presiding Member
Nishita RA 07/23 Page 1 of 10
Order by Hon'ble Ms. Archana Raval, Presiding Member
1. This review application is filed by the Appellants in appeal no.30/2023 under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. In the present review application main relief prayed by the present Applicant is that- as the coaching was given only for 3 to 4 days and thereafter, admission was canceled. Hence, the fees paid by the complainant Rs. 36,000/- may be order to be refunded and Rs. 10,000/- be awarded for mental agony and cost of litigation.
2. The Applicant has field the present review application in Appeal No.30/2023 wherein following points have been raised by the Applicant.
i. The order passed by this commission is against the facts of this case, against the law and against the principles of natural justices, hence, this application be allowed.
ii. That Hon‟ble State Commission has not considered the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Manu Solanki and Others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and Others reported in 1 (2020) CPJ, 2010 - in its proper perspective. In the aforesaid judgment as well as in the judgment of P. A. Inamdar the Hon‟ble Apex Court has clearly stated that the coaching centres cannot be equated with the schools or collages, which are regulated by a regulatory authority and also confer a degree/diploma to the student who has passed in the examinations. The coaching centers cannot fall within the definition of „Educational Institutions‟. Therefore, the order passed by this commission is misconceived and required to be corrected/ set aside and appropriate order to be passed, treating the coaching classes out of the purview of Educational Institutions and be held that the Nishita RA 07/23 Page 2 of 10 complainant is a consumer as per the definition under the C. P. Act.
3. Arguments of the Applicant: party in person:
Mr. Prashant Anuprai Purohit, party in preson argued that he is relying upon the grounds for review which are mentioned in the application. As per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019, the State Commission has the power to review any of the order passed by it, if there is an error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the commission must review its order.
4. Argument of the Respondent:
The Respondent- director, Logic Academy filed its written arguments for this application and urged that the review petition cannot be heard on merits, this state commission has no jurisdiction to retry the issue under the review petition and the judgment and order passed by this commission cannot be reversed by appreciating the evidence/document on record. There is no apparent error on the face of the judgment, hence, this application required to be rejected.
5. Scope of review:
It will be beneficial to refer following provisions of law:
A. Section 50 of the Act: "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."
B. Order 47 Rules (1) of the CPC, 1908:
"(1) any person considering himself aggrieved-Nishita RA 07/23 Page 3 of 10
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal
(c) is allowed, or
(d) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
6. Considering the section 50 of the Act and order 47 Rule (1) of the CPC, 1908 there are three grounds under the order 47 Rule 1, which reads as under:
(i) The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made,
(ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
(iii) for any other sufficient reason, But as per section 50 of the C.P. Act, 2019 the State Commission have power to review its order on only one ground i.e. if there is an error apparent on the face of record.Nishita RA 07/23 Page 4 of 10
7. Merit of the case:
7.1 Read the Review application, perused the grounds raised by the Applicant and considered the oral arguments made by the party in person.
7.2 It is the main contention of the Applicant that State Commission has not considered submission of the complainant and has wrongly considered the provision of law and the documents on record.
7.3 While deciding this reviewed application, this commission has considered following judgments wherein the Hon‟ble Apex court has laid down ratio and scope of review by the court. 7.4 It is stated by the applicant in appeal memo that there is evidence on record that original opponent Logic Academy is a coaching classes and training institute. In the receipt given to the complainant where the name of the name of the institute was shown Logic Academy Pvt. Ltd. that the reply of the notice given by the opponent where it is stated that "our client company is one training institute and our client company gives training."
Thus in the written statement it is submitted that Logic Academy is a privet limited company and it is a training institute that company gives training for GMET, IELTS and other type of training. The state commission has misread and misconstrued the judgment referred in the order dt. 17.05.202. The complainant falls within the definition of consumer and has entitled to held the remedy under the C.P. Act.
(A) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 674: Northern India Caterers (India vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi dated 21.12.1979.
4. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by Nishita RA 07/23 Page 5 of 10 the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.(1) For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment. G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta.(2) The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O. N. Mahindroo v. Distt.Judge Delhi &Anr.(2) Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Art. 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Art.
145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility."ChandraKanta v. Sheikh Habib.
9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to appear for the Respondent, was never brought to our Nishita RA 07/23 Page 6 of 10 attention when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
(B) In Lilly Thomas v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute views. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:-
"55. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 orArticle 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a Nishita RA 07/23 Page 7 of 10 different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.
(C) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in KamleshVerma v.
Mayawati and Others reported in 2013 (4) CTC 882 has held that the review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:
"15.Review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. In Review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the Review Jurisdiction."
(D) The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the Case of Asstt.
Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd, reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.), held that "In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and selfevident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an Nishita RA 07/23 Page 8 of 10 error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no Court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one of the possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error."
8. From the above observations of Hon‟ble Apex Courts, it is crystal clear that the review petition cannot be an appeal remedy as the scope of review is very limited. However, in this review application the points raised by Applicant are only disagreement with the order of this State Commission in Appeal no. 226/2020 but in review jurisdiction mere disagreement that the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same and the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise. As per section 50 of the C.P. Act. 2019 if there is an error apparent on the face of record i.e any typographical error or any arithmetical errors are only required be considered and review can be exercised for correcting of mistake and not to substitute a view.
9. In view of the above discussion in depth in the opinion of this commission review application filed by the Applicant cannot be considered and therefore following final order is passed.
ORDER
1. Review application 07/2023 is hereby dismissed.
2. Order dated 10.05.2023 passed in the Appeal Nishita RA 07/23 Page 9 of 10 No.30/2023 is hereby confirmed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Office is directed to s u p p l y a free of cost certified copy of this order to the respective parties.
5. Copy of this order to be kept in original file of Appeal No.30/2023.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 28th November, 2023.
A.C. Raval Presiding Member Nishita RA 07/23 Page 10 of 10