Details	DD	MM	YY
Date of Judgment	08	03	2022
Date of filing	11	11	2021
Duration	27	03	00

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.

Review Application No.A/2021/49 [Virtual Hearing]

Court No. 1 Kishor Bhikhabhai Vavliya, Add : D-501, Satyam Residency, Nr. Nilkanth Plazma, B/h. Balaji Residency, Opp.

Yogi Chawk, Varacha, Surat. … Applicant Vs M/s. Rudraksh Developers A Partnership Firm Thorough It’s Partner Satyam Dhirajlal Devani Add: 1. Building-E, Flat NO. 404, 4th Floor, Swastik Tower, Nr. Sarthana Jakatnaka, Kamrej Road, Surat.

2. C/O. Pushkar Heights, Nr. Satyam Residency, Opp. Mahalakshmi Society, Yogi Chawk, Varacha, Surat. …Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President Smt. U. P. Jani, Member APPEARANCE: Mr. Sunil D. Bhatt, advocate for the applicant.

ORDER: By Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President

1. The applicant has filed the Review Application under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’), wherein, the main relief is prayed in term of para 11(i) which reads as under:

“Considering the facts and reasons stated herein above please grant out review application and review order dated 27.09.2021 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. RP/10/2021."

2. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Sunil D. Bhatt, for the applicant. Perused the record of the case and judgment and order passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. RP/10/2021. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission deem fit not to issue notice to other side. Hence, no notice is issued to opponents.

3. Facts of the case: That the original complainant/applicant has filed Complaint No. 762/2018 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Surat (Main). Wherein opponent appeared and filed preliminary objections. The preliminary objections were rejected while order dated 30.03.2021 by the learned District Commission Surat (Main). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said rejection order, the Revision Petition No. 10 of 2021 was filed by the opponent. The same Revision Application is allowed and passed order dated 27.09.2021 by this Commission. Hence this review application is filed. 3.1. It is stated that the no notice was served to the complainant and therefore he has not contacted to his advocate That due to corona pandemic he was engaged in the treatment to his relatives. Therefore, he was not remained present before the commission and the Revision Petition was decided ex-party.

4. Argument of the applicant:

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has argued that the State Commission has power to review of order, if there is an error apparent on the face of record. That the State Commission has not heard present applicant while deciding the revision petition. That no opportunity was given to him. Therefore, he has suffered loss. In the interest of justice the Revision Application was required to be heard. learned advocate has cited the Judgment of Subhasis das V/s. Central Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited by the Hon’ble District Commission on 07.12.2018. That the State Commission has wrongly interpreted the Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. He has requested to allow the review application.

Scope of Review:

5. It will be beneficial to refer following provisions of law.

(A) Section 50 of the Act:“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.”

(B) Order 47 Rule (1) of the CPC, 1908:

“(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document