The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum does not have the power of review as it is not conferred by the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER :

U.V. Bakre, President—This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.7.2018 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa (the “Forum”, for short) in Consumer Complaint No. 90/2016. The Appellant is the Opposite Party (OP, for short) and the Respondents were the Complainants in the said Complaint. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Complaint.

2. Facts sufficient for disposal of the Appeal are as follows:

The Forum had given a last opportunity to the OP to file affidavit-in-evidence on 16.2.2018. On 16.2.2018, the OP was absent before the Forum when the matter was called out two times, before 11.15 a.m.. On account of the absence of the OP and since the last opportunity was given to the OP to file affidavit-in-evidence on this date, the opportunity to file affidavit-in-evidence by the OP was closed. However, on the same day i.e. 16.2.2018 at 11.15 a.m., the learned Counsel for the OP appeared before the Forum and presented the affidavit-in-evidence along with copies. The same was simply kept by the Forum in the file. On the same day i.e. 0n 16.2.2018, the OP, hurriedly, filed an application for reopening the evidence. The OP stated that on account of traffic congestion on the Panaji–Porvorim road, the representative of the OP reached late at 11.15 a.m. and since the evidence of the OP has been closed, the OP is filing the said application. The OP stated that the absence of the OP was not intentional.

3. Vide the impugned Order, the Forum, inter alia, held that it cannot set aside its own order and that the learned Advocate of the OP could not show any specific enabling provision in the Consumer Protection Act empowering the Forum to set aside its own order. On this count alone, the application dated 16.2.2018 came to be dismissed. The OP is aggrieved by the impugned order.

4. Records and proceedings of Complaint No. 90/2016 were called for. The OP has filed written arguments. The Complainants did not wish to file any written arguments. Oral arguments heard. Ms. Bhosle, learned Counsel argued on behalf of the OP and Ms. Mandrekar, learned Counsel argued on behalf of the Complainants. We have gone through the entire material on record.

5. It is seen that on 16.2.2018, the Forum has passed an Order in the Roznama thereby closing the opportunity to the OP to file the affidavit-in-evidence and fixing the matter for written arguments of the Complainant on 19.3.2018. The above impugned Order was passed ex parte since the OP was absent on that date. Allowing the application to reopen the evidence would amount to review of the order of the Forum by the Forum or would amount to setting aside the ex parte order passed by the Forum and this is not permissible. The Forum has not been conferred with the power of review. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Major. C.B. Singh” reported in AIR 1978 SC 1814, has observed that it is well settled that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of provision therefore. Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act’, for short), provides for power and procedure applicable to the National Commission. As per Section 22(2) of the Act, the National Commission has power to review any order made by it, where there is an error apparent on the face of record. This power of review came to be conferred on the National Commission by way of amendment to Section 22 of the Act which came into force as from 15.3.2003. Prior to that even the National Commission did not have the power of review. It should be kept in mind that the Parliament has chosen not to amend Section 13 of the Act which deals with the procedure applicable on admission of the Complaint and therefore it is clear that Parliament has chosen not to confer the power of review on the Forum. This State Commission in Review Application No. 1/14 Damodar Mangalji & Co. Ltd. v. Mr. Xavier Saldanha, by order dated 9.1.2015, has held that this State Commis