The review jurisdiction under CPC cannot be exercised to reargue settled questions, only for apparent errors or new evidence.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule I read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the judgment dated 12.12.2025 passed in WA No.2753/2025 whereby the Writ Appeal has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1^st respondent/complainant’s vehicle was detained by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, ie, the 2^nd respondent herein. In order to get the vehicle released, he was compelled to pay the amount as claimed, ie, Rs.68,437/-. The 1^st respondent approached the appellant seeking re-imbursement of the said amount as the vehicle was covered with an insurance package policy covering the third party risk including property damage etc. Since there was no re-imbursement from the appellant, the 1^st respondent submitted a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in CC No.580/2023. The issue with regard to jurisdiction of the District Commission was raised on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to consider the disputes which come under the scope of Section 126 of the Electricity Act of 2003. The District Forum, after hearing the parties concerned, passed order dated 21.04.2025, rejecting the said contention and held that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Being aggrieved, the Review Petitioner challenged the order in the Writ Petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and held that the complaint is maintainable. Being aggrieved the Review Petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.2753/2025. This Court came to the conclusion as under:

“15. After carefully going through all the statutory provisions and the implications thereof with reference to the grievances highlighted by the 1st respondent in the complainant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the District Consumer Forum has rightly decided the issue with regard to jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed without prejudice to other contentions raised by the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that the State Commission has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and also to the decide the issue of jurisdiction with regard to maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum.

16. With the aforesaid, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant would be at liberty to approach the State Commission within a period of 30 days from today, if so advised. The period spent before this Court in prosecuting the Writ Appeal as well as the Writ Petition shall not be taken into account by the State Commission while considering any application for condonation of delay etc., in accordance with law.

All interlocutory applications as regards interim matters stands closed.”

Being aggrieved, the present Review Petition is filed.

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court erred in dismissing the Writ Appeal inasmuch as the matter relating to the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be entertained by the District Consumer Commission since the Motor Vehicles Act is a Special Act, therefore, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (For short the Act) would not apply. This Court failed to consider this fact and dismissed the Writ Appeal on the ground of alternative remedy. Thus this Review Petition may be allowed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and perused the records.

5. We have carefully gone through all the statutory provisions. Admittedly, the appeal is provided to the State Consumer Commission under Section