The District Commission cannot review its own final orders under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Substantive changes to a consent order via a corrigendum, without providing a hearing to the opposite party, are legally impermissible and exceed the commission's jurisdiction.

O R D E R

% 28.01.2026 CM APPL. 79608/2025 (for delay)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed and the delay of 326 days in filing the petition stands condoned.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 19139/2025

1. The petition is preferred against the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) in Revision Petition no.168/2017, whereby, the NCDRC set aside the corrigendum order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [District Commission].

2. The facts indicate that the petitioner had instituted a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in services rendered by the respondent insofar as it had downgraded the petitioner’s membership with the latter to ‘Red-Studio Apartment’ category, whereas, she had applied for a ‘Red-One Bedroom Membership’.

3. As per the petitioner, the respondent had offered to settle the dispute prior to the institution of the said complaint, but the same, being unacceptable, had been rejected by her.

4. The District Commission, in its final order dated 23.11.2012, has recorded that after issuance of notice to the respondent in the said complaint, it had filed an affidavit offering to settle the matter as per certain terms. Finally after “taking into consideration the entire facts and settlement terms”, the District Commission has directed the respondent to reinstate the ‘Red Studio Membership’ of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide the corrigendum order dated 13.02.2013, the District Commission modified its earlier order to the extent of replacing the words ‘Red Studio Membership’ to ‘One Bed Room Accommodation’. The said order is extracted below, for reference:

“In the above complaint, final order dated 23.11.2012 was issued by this forum vide dispatch number – 1048 – 1051 dated 27.11.2012 inter alia directing OPs to reinstate the membership of the complainant and type of membership was inadvertently mentioned as “Red Studio membership”.

In partial modification, the direction may be read as “One Bed Room Accommodation” instead of “Red Studio Membership”. All other contents of the order will remain unchanged.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per rule.”

5. The said modification was challenged by the respondent before the State Commission and finally, before the NCDRC. The NCDRC, vide the impugned order, has held that the District Commission erred in passing modifying its earlier final order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, more so, when the modification was in respect of a substantive part thereof and not merely a typographical error. Further it held that the District Commission was not empowered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to review its own orders. An observation that the final order dated 23.11.2012 was passed in terms of a settlement between the parties and was therefore, a ‘consent order’ was also made in the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corrigendum Order dated 13.09.2013 has erroneously been set aside by the NCDRC and that the basis for the impugned order was the finding that the final order was passed on the basis of a settlement between the parties. According to him, the corrigendum order further, did not amount to any ‘review’ of the final order dated 23.11.2011, and only corrected a typographical error.

7. However, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the NCDRC set aside the corrigendum order on the grounds that the District Commission could not have reviewed its final order,