Review applications are limited to correcting manifest errors, not for rehearing or challenging merits of the previous decision.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDENT

1. The present review application has been filed by the review applicant for reviewing the impugned judgment and order dated 02-04-2025 passed by the bench of the State Commission in Appeal No.74 of 2025; Intercity Smart Bus Vs Abhishek Kumar Sahu inter-alia whereby the appeal filed by the review applicant was dismissed.

2. The office has reported a delay of 31 days in filing the review application. For condoning the same, an application supported by an affidavit has also been filed by the review applicant.

3. In view of order, which is proposed to be passed, we hereby dispense with notice to the opposite party/complainant herein.

4. By means of application dated 17-06-2025, the review applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 31 days reported by office in filing this review application.

5. In support of aforesaid application, an affidavit dated 17-06-2025 has also been filed by the review applicant.

6. Having regard to the contents of uncontroverted affidavit in support of application seeking condonation of delay, this bench finds that the cause of delay has been sufficiently explained, therefore, application seeking condonation of delay is hereby allowed and delay, if any, in preferring the instant review application is hereby condoned.

7. The review application is admitted for hearing.

8. We have heard Sri Rakshit Srivastava, learned Counsel for the review applicant and perused the entire record

9. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the review applicant that the original complaint in this matter was filed on false facts which came to be allowed by the learned District Commission against the weight of evidence. The present review applicant/appellant filed the appeal no. 74/2025; Intercity Smart Bus Vs Abhishek Kumar Sahu to assail the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 02-04-2025 inter-alia on the ground that being an intermediary company, the liability of the present review applicant/appellant was only to provide ticket booking platform for the travellers and the bus service operators. The learned State Commission while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 02-04-2025 failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact.

10. His further submission is that while deciding the appeal bearing no. 74/2025, the learned State Commission has also failed to appreciate the legal position as settled by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Utkal Maheshwari & Others Vs Cox & Kings Ltd. & Others to the effect that an intermediary cannot be held liable for the deficiency in service arising out of acts or omissions of third-party operators listed on its platform.

11. He, thus submitted that the aforesaid errors which are apparent on the face of record, are sufficient for setting-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02-04-2025.

12. Having heard the learned Counsel for the review applicant and upon perusal of record including the impugned judgment and order dated 02-04-2025 passed by this Commission, we find it relevant to mention that under Section 50 of The Act of 2019, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has the power to review its own orders if there is an error apparent on the face of record. This power can be exercised either on its own motion or upon an application by a party, provided the application is filed within 30 days of the order. However, review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of record only. In the garb of review, rehearing or rewriting of the impugned judgment/order is not permissible. Thus, the State Commi