M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 53/2024 Purnima Sinha D/o Kailashpati Sinha R/o N.M.R. Deluxe –B-9, New Minal Residency, Raj Homes, J.K. Road, Bhopal (M.P.) ... Applicant VERSUS.

1. Chief Executive Officer, TSR Through Shaw Ltd.

6-10 Haji Musa Patrawala Industrial Estate -20 Dr. ‘E’ Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 011.

2. Chairman, Tata Motors, Bombay House, 24, Hogi Modi Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai -400 001

3. Director, Tata Motors, Bombay House, 24, Hogi Modi Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai -400 001

4. Authorised Signatory Tata Motors Bombay House, 24, Hogi Modi Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai -400 001 …Non-applicants BEFORE;

HON’BLE SHRI A.K. TIWARI, ACTING PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI K.P. SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT.

SHRI LALIT GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR NON-APPLICANTS.

O R D E R

( .09.2024 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by A.K. Tiwari, Acting President.

This review application by the applicant/respondent has been filed against the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by this Commission in appeal No.1342/2015, by which the appeal filed by the non-applicants/respondents has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for applicant has vehemently argued that the Commission has erred in passing the impugned order on the ground that the applicant/respondent is not a consumer because she is engaged in share trading business. He further argued that the judgments referred and relied on by this Commission while passing the impugned order viz. order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 3286 of 2016 (Baidyanath Mondal vs. Kanahayalal Rathi and Ors) decided on 29.4.2022 and order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 224, were regarding prospective investment, who were involved in commercial activities, whereas the applicant/respondent purchased the share for her livelihood exclusively by means of self-employment.

3. Learned counsel for non-applicants/appellants on the other hand supported the impugned order and submits that this Commission has no power to review its own order. The review application is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, we find that the applicant is challenging the order on merits. Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads 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, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order”.

Bare perusal of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that an order can only be reviewed by the State Commission, when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Whereas, in the instant matter, as mentioned, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for applicant has no force, as he has argued the matter on merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 621 has held that if an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record. An order cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court on a point of fact or law, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court cannot sit in appeal over its decision.

6. In view of the aforesaid settled position and also in view of the fact that it has been observed in paragraph-11 of the impugned order that applicant/respondent is not a ‘consumer’, after discussing the case in detail and by citing relevant cases viz. Baidyanath Mondal vs. Kanahayalal Rathi and Ors (supra) and Mor