STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/32/RA/2/2025 IN SC/32/A/123/2024 SECRETARY VENGARA WATER SUPPLY AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (JALANIDHI)

PRESENT ADDRESS - MALAPPURAM 676306NCDRC,KERALA.

SECRETARY VENGARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT PRESENT ADDRESS - MALAPPURAMNCDRC,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SUBAIR THENGILAN PRESENT ADDRESS - THENGILAN HOUSE KUTTOR MADANCHIRA KOORIYAD P O VENGARA MALAPPURAMNCDRC,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVIEW APPLICATION No.02/2025 in APPEAL No.123/2024 ORDER DATED: 29.01.2025 PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

1. Secretary, Vengara Water Supply & Social Development Scheme (Jalanithi), Malappuram – 676 304

2. Secretary, Vengara Grama Panchayat, Vengara – 676 304 (by Adv. Muhamad Shah M.K.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Subair Thengilan, S/o Abdulla Thengilan, Thengilan House, Kuttoor, Madanchira, Kooriyad P.O., Vengara, Malappuram

O R D E R

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a petition filed by the appellant in appeal No. A 123/2024 to review the order dated 30.09.2024, dismissing the appeal.

2. The appeal was filed after the statutory period. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.274/2024 seeking for condonation of delay.

3. On 30.09.2024 the petitioner remained absent. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and hence the petition was dismissed. According to the petitioner, the counsel of the petitioner was held up before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in a listed matter and he was unable to appear before this Commission. He tried to appear through virtual mode, but his attempt went in vain. There was no wilful negligence on his part. Hence, the petitioner would seek for the review of the order.

4. The petitioner has quoted Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for passing the order. The petitioner ought to have quoted Section 50 when he seeks for a review before the State Commission. Wrong quoting of a provision is not a ground to disallow the request. Therefore, we treat the petition as one filed under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not empower the State Commission to set aside the order of dismissal and to restore a case which was dismissed for default. When statute does not empower the State Commission to restore an appeal or a petition which was dismissed for default, such an act cannot be enforced under the pretext of review. Review could be ordered if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which would warrant the review of the order. Since this Commission has no power to restore an appeal which was dismissed for default, the request cannot be allowed by resorting to the powers contained under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get an order as sought for.

In the result, the review application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER SL ..................

SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT ..................

SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER