A review petition cannot be used as an appeal to seek re-appreciation of evidence; it must be limited to identifying specific, palpable factual errors that, if corrected, would alter the original decision.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

07.01.2026

1. These three petitions have arisen out of a similar order dated 13.05.2022 passed in three different review petitions.

2. The facts of the case would indicate that there were three complaint cases registered at the instance of the complainants before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Comission [‘NCDRC’], New Delhi.

3. Vide final order dated 08.12.2021, the NCDRC allowed the complaints in the following terms:

“21. We further note that on one hand the society-Opposite Party No. 2 initially made no compulsion to its members to pay the charges towards the deficiency in open space, However, later on, the Society admitted that the MCGM demand Rs. 8.99 crore to be entirely payable by the individual members of the Opposite Party No. 2 Society and alleged that the Complainants unnecessarily filed the Consumer Complaints against the Opposite Party No. 1.

22. It is apparent from the record that the value of each flat was more than 2 crore in 2016, there was delay of 8 months to hand over the possession. The Opposite Parties made the Complainants to suffer physical stress and mental agony, therefore the Complainants deserve for a fair compensation.

22. In the light of the above discussion, we find, both, Deficiency in Service within the meaning of section 2(1) (g) & (0), and Unfair Trade Practice within the meaning of section 2(1) (r), to be well and truly evident on the part of the Opposite Parties since the Opposite Party No. 1 did not pay the amount in timely manner as per the Agreement. In remedy, it would be just and equitable to direct the Builder Co., the Opposite Party No. I to pay the following amounts to each of the Complainants:-

i) To refund the charges to the Complainants collected by the Opposite Party No. I towards deficiency in open space @9% p.a. since 06.01.2015 till its realization.

ii) The amount towards shortage in the carpet area @ Rs.24,650/- per sq.ft on the date of possession with the interest @9% p.a. from 05.01.2016 till its realization.

iii) Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental agony and Compensation for delay of 8 months in handing over possession.

iv) The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-jointly and severally towards the litigation costs to each of the Complainants.

The aforesaid direction shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till its realization.”

4. Against the order passed by the NCDRC the petitioners herein have approached the Supreme Court in separate civil appeals. Three appeals were registered bearing Civil Appeal No.2452/2022, 2461/2022 and 2561/2022. The Supreme Court vide order dated 04.04.2022 did not find merit to interfere with the orders passed by the NCDRC.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, then sought liberty to withdraw the civil appeals with a view to approach the NCDRC in review petitions to point out the purported ‘factual errors’. The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn with liberty to point out the ‘factual errors’, if any, before the NCDRC. The Supreme Court, however, specifically emphasised that the reviews should be confined to the ‘factual errors’, if any, only.

6. For the sake of clarity, the order passed by the Supreme Court is extracted as under:

“As to such on merits, we see no reason interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (For short "National Commission"). However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) has submitted that the judgment was delivered after delay of