Review applications are limited to apparent errors directly visible in the record, not based on merits or reasoning.

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

By this review application, the applicant/opposite party-

M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Electricity Company’), assails the order dated

30.5.2024 passed by this Commission in appeal No.1967/2017.

2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that there is error apparent on the face of the record because the bill challenged by respondent-Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari was issued in the name of Durga Prasad Gupta, who is the ‘consumer’ of the Electricity Company, the respondent is, therefore, not a ‘consumer’ of the applicant. On checking the connected load of shop, the same was found 6557 watts against sanctioned load of 3846 and the meter was found tampered, therefore, under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, bill was issued to the consumer, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before District Commission. Learned counsel further submitted that although the amount in the bill was calculated and issued on the basis of load of 6557 watts but by mistake it was wrongly mentioned as 16557 in the bill. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent but this Commission, has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant, against the order of the District Commission. It is further submitted that this Commission, while passing the order dated 30.5.2024, did not consider that connection in dispute was not of domestic category and the respondent have no right to file complaint. Learned counsel for applicant therefore, prayed that the review application be allowed and the impugned order reviewed and appeal be dismissed with costs.

3. In this review application, the learned counsel for applicant has challenged the impugned order on various grounds, including the ground of maintainability, being the respondent/complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of applicant.

4. Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 , provides as below:-

“50. Review by the 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 case of Parsion Devi and others vs. sumitri Devi and others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon’ble Apext Court observed that an error that is not self-evident and that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review.

6. In the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The judgment may be open to review inter-aila if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further observed that in exercise of jurisdiction of review it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. A review application has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’.

7. It is also well settled that error referred to must be apparent on the face of the record and not one, which has to be searched out. In case of Inderchand Jain vs. Motilal (2009) 14 SCC 663, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

8. In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law the impugned order cannot be reviewed, as there is no apparent error on the face of the record. The gro