FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

Misc. Application No.708 of 2024 In/an Review Application No.05 of 2024 In First Appeal No.656 of 2022 Date of Institution : 06.06.2024 Date of Reserve : 10.07.2024 Date of Decision : 16.07.2024 Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs. B.L.Castings & Ors.

Review Application under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present:-

For the applicants/appellants : Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate The review application u/S 50 of the CP Act, 2019 along with application for condoning the delay in filing the same has been filed with a prayer to review the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No.656 of 2022, vide which the appeal filed by the applicants/appellants was dismissed being devoid of merits.

Misc. Application No.708 of 2024 (Delay)

2. This application has been filed by the applicants/appellants for condoning the delay of 54 days in filing of the review application on the ground that the information required for the decision of review application was being collected and consolidated as the same was required to be confirmed from a third party source, who is handling the agency for the loan.

3. As per Section 14 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, the limitation for filing the review application is thirty days from the date of the order. However, in this case, the applicants/appellants have filed this review with a delay of 54 days and the grounds mentioned in the application are not supporting with any document, which could prove that the delay of 54 days in filing the review application is unreasonable. Moreover, there is no provision to condone the delay in filing the review application. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.

4. In this review application, the main assertions made by the applicants/appellants are that the nodal agency-Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) informed vide email dated 08.09.2022 that on account of variation in subsidy terms the complainant has not maintained the term loan for 3 years and the subsidy amount is required to be returned to the nodal agency. The applicant also alleged that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as SIDBI has not been made a party. They also alleged that benefit of the amount of Rs.8,18,625/- was availed by the complainant on 02.07.2021.

5. The careful perusal of the above said reference as made by the applicant shows that the applicants/appellants themselves are not clear regarding the stand taken by them and has mentioned these vague facts in their review petition. Had they been cleared then they should have known about email which has been mentioned by them was received at much later stage i.e. much later after passing the order of the District Commission on 27.05.2022. Similarly, the plea of non-joinder of the necessary parties is nowhere raised by the applicants/appellants before the District Commission when they filed their written reply. It was their prime duty to raise this issue before the District Commission making the SIDBI as a necessary party and at this stage when the case is at appellate stage, there is no scope to raise the new plea that too in the review application.

6. Through this review application, the documents which the applicants are referring on the basis of which they want to get the order reviewed, were not part of the record, therefore, it cannot be said that these were not considered and is the error apparent on the face of it. Moreover, as per Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, the power to review of its own order is quite limited. Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 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,