Review of a dismissal order requires proof of error apparent on the face of the record under the Consumer Protection Act.

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav :

The applicant has filed this review application under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 seeking review of order dated 26.12.2023 passed by this Commission in AEA No.45 of 2023 (Smt. Shashi Raizada Vs Bharti Airtel Limited) by which the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

2. Applicant argued that the impugned order passed by this Commission is perverse and against the settled principle of law. It is further argued that applicant sent the aforesaid appeal by post in which he was directed to remove the defaults. However, since he could not receive any intimation to remove the defaults and about the next date of hearing, he failed to remain present on 26.12.2023 and the appeal suffered dismissal for want of prosecution. He therefore prayed that the impugned order be reviewed and the appeal be restored for hearing on merits.

3. Heard. Perused the record.

4. Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 which is relevant for the purposes for deciding the issue involved in the case is reproduced hereunder:-

50. Review by State Commission in certain cases- 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.

5. In the light of the aforesaid provision, the applicant has to prove that there is any error apparent on the face of the record, however, he failed to show any such error.

6. The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act and as per provisions of this special Act, for review of the order by this Commission, the applicant has to show that there is any error apparent on the face of the record, which he failed to do so.

7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of a considered opinion that there is no such error, apparent on the face of the record in the order which is being challenged, therefore, it does not call for exercising review jurisdiction conferred upon the State Commission under Section 50 of the Act of 2019. Even otherwise, this Commission has no power for restoration of case. Consequently, the review application filed by the applicants, seeking review of order and restoration of appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution not being maintainable, is hereby dismissed.