STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

In First Appeal No. 306 of 2023 Date of institution : 30.09.2024 Reserved on : 17.02.2025 Date of Decision : 24.02.2025 Ramesh Kumar aged about 69 years S/o Chiranji Lal, resident of House No. 1225, Dashmesh Nagar, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

….Applicant/Appellant (Complainant)

Versus

1. Improvement Trust, Faridkot through its Chairman.

2. Improvement Trust, Faridkot through its Executive Officer.

.…Non-Applicants/Respondents(OPs)

Review Application under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed in F.A. No. 306 of 2023.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the Applicant : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate (Appellant/Complainant)

For the Non-Applicants : Sh. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate (Respondents/OPs)

SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The instant Review Application has been filed by Applicant/Appellant (Complainant) under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, with the prayer to review the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 306 of 2023.

The grounds taken in the present Review Application by learned Counsel for the Applicant are as under:-

“i) This Commission wrongly interpreted that the Complainant himself had surrendered the plot and seeking the refund of the deposited amount, as observed in para No. 23 of the judgment.

ii) This Commission failed to grant the interest from the date of deposit of the amount.”

It was argued that it was the Respondents/OPs, who forced the Appellant/Complainant to seek the refund of the deposited amount.”

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant was specifically asked as to what was the error apparent in the said order as under review, this Commission has limited power. Said provision of CP Act, 2019 qua deciding the Review Application, is reproduced as under:

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.

3. Learned Counsel for the Non-Applicants/Respondents has also argued that there was no error apparent in the impugned order and under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, there is limited powers with this Commission to review its own order i.e. only in the case of error apparent on the face of the record.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully and have also given our thoughtful consideration to the grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the parties to review the order dated 21.08.2024.

5. Perusal of the above provisions shows that under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission has power to review its own order, but it is limited as mentioned above (para 2).

6. The perusal of the order dated 21.08.2024, reveals that the First Appeal Nos. 243 of 2023 and 306 of 2023 were decided on merits and we do not find any error in the detailed order. However, in the interest of justice, we have examined the grounds taken by the learned Counsel for the applicant/Appellant (Complainant) in the review application.

7. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that this Commission had wrongly interpreted that the Complainant had himself surrendered the plot whereas he was forced to seek the refund of the amount deposited by him as sale price. It was an admitted position that the Complainant had himself sought the refund of the deposited amount. In the given circumstances, the Complainant could not have been entitled for holding the possession of the plot as well as seeking refund of the amount wit