A review application under the Consumer Protection Act requires an error apparent on record, which was not found in this case.

HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

SHAIKH ALTAF QURESHI FOR THE RESPONDENT:

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER BHUSAWAL DATED: 26/06/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2024 SHEIKH ALTAF QURESHI. … APPLICANT Versus DRM CENTRAL RAILWAY BHUSAWAL & ANR. … RESPONDENTS BEFORE:

HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER O R D E R (Passed on 26.06.2025)

Applicant is present in person.

Shri Indrajeet Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the respondents.

As per Dr. Srikant Pandey :

Heard on admission.

This review application has been filed against the order dated

26.06.2024 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 798 Of 2023 (Sheikh Altaf Qureshi Vs D.R.M.Central Railway, Bhusawal & Anr) whereby the appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

2. Applicant submits that the aforesaid appeal filed by him was dismissed for want of prosecution stating that on 09.02.2024 also none was present for the appellant. He argued that absence on 09.02.2024 is also make a ground to dismiss the appeal whereas on 09.02.2024, the case was fixed before Bench-II for the presence of the respondent and not for the presence of appellant. On that date counsel for respondents filed vakalatnama and the case was fixed for final hearing on 26.06.2024. Since the applicant had no knowledge of the next date, he failed to appear on 26.06.2024 and the case was dismissed which is clerical error. He argued that there was a bonafide mistake which led to absence of representation when the matter was called resulting dismissal in default. He therefore prayed for setting aside the order and to restore the aforesaid appeal.

3. 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.

4. Bare perusal of the aforesaid section makes it clear that an order can be reviewed by the State Commission when there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

5. On bare perusal of the order it is observed that none was present for the appellant on 26.06.2024 as also on 09.02.2024. So far as the argument of applicant that on 09.02.2024 the case was fixed for presence of respondents is concerned, it is to mention here that it was not fixed for presence of respondents only. On every date parties are required to appear. Even though in absence of appellant, this Commission going through the appeal memo admitted the appeal and fixed the case for final hearing on 26.06.2024. On both dates 26.06.2024 and 09.02.2024 counsel for respondents was present. However, the appellant remained absent. Also there was no application or prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of appellant. In such circumstances, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order.

6. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, we are of a considered view that there being no such error, apparent on the face of the record in the order which is being challenged, it does not call for exercising review jurisdiction conferred upon the State Commission under Section 50 of the Act of 2019. Accordingly, the review application filed by the applicant, being not maintainable is dismissed.