Review Application   No. 24 of 2024

First Appeal No. 66 of 2023

          This Review Application has been filed by appellant seeking restoration of FA No. 66 of 2023.

2.      The FA No. 66 of 2023 was dismissed on 23.4.2024 for non-prosecution.

3.      In the present case the appeal was dismissed on 23.4.2024 but the Review Application has been filed on 14.6.2024 beyond the    period of limitation without explaining the delay with the following prayer:-

a) Pass an Order allowing the present restoration application and restore the appeal No.66 of 2023.

b) Pass an Order giving an opportunity to hear the case of the appellant.

c) pass any other Order or further orders, as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.

4.      Rule 11(6)(a) of The Consumer Protection (Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020 clearly speaks as follows:-

“11.6 On the date of hearing or any other day to which hearing may be adjourn, the parties or their authorized agents shall appear before the State Commission and where -

(a) The appellant or his authorized agent fails to appear, State Commission may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it ex parte on the merits of the case”.

Xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied by us)”

5.      In the present case, the appellant was absent on 8.4.2024, 16.4.2024 and on 23.4.2024, on those three dates respondent/complainant was present in person and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.04.2024.

6.       There is no provision under the Consumer  Protection Act, 2019 empowering the State Commission to restore the appeal in a Review application, which was dismissed for non-prosecution.

7.      Section-50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, under which present application has been filed by applicant, provides for review by State Commission in certain cases. The said section is reproduced below:-

          “50 - Review by State Commission in certain cases - The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed but 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 30 days of such order.”

8.      It is submitted by the review petitioner that this Commission has ample power to restore the appeal, which has been dismissed for default in exercise of powers under section -50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

9.      We are afraid that the said argument is not tenable in the eyes of law. Review is a substantive power to be exercised as per the provision of law. We are of the considered opinion that since section-50 does not confer that power on the commission and since no case of “error apparent on the face of the record” has been made out by the petitioner the review application