STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/CB2/27/RA/1/2025 IN SC/CB2/27/A/20/53 BANK OF MAHARASHTRA.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN , LOKMANGAL ,1501, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE 411005,MAHARASHTRA.

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS ZONAL OFFICER MANAGER , MUNJE CHOWK, SITABULDI, NAGPUR.,MAHARASHTRA.

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DHARAMPETH BRANCH , NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SMT. VIJAYSHRI RAMESH MOHOD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. PANDHARABODI NO.11, AMBAZARI, HILL TOP, NER WATER TANK , NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

.

DATED: 30/09/2025

ORDER

(Delivered on 30/09/2025)

Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. The present Review Application is filed by the applicant/original complainant under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. (For the sake of brevity "The Act")

2. Consumer complaint under section 12 bearing No. CC/532/2018 was partly allowed by the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur dated 03/12/2019. After receipt of the Certified Copy the O.P. Bank had challenged this order by filling First Appeal bearing No. FA/20/53 before this bench under section 15 of the Act.

3. Thereafter the appeal was partly allowed by order dated 25/02/2025. The instant Review Application was filed seeking review of the impugned Judgement/Order passed by this Commission in FA/20/53.

4. The question now being examined here is as to whether the Review Application filed under section 50 of the Act of 2019 is maintainable against its own order which is passed under the old Act of 1986? (Consumer Complaint and Appeal both are filed under Old Act of 1986)

5. On perusal of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it is palpably emerged that the State Commission has the power to review its own orders if there is an "error apparent on the face of the record". This review can be initiated either by the State Commission itself or by an application from one of the parties involved in the case. However, any application for review must be made within 30 days of the order being passed.

6. In Review Application, applicant has prominently relied on the Judgement in Dilip K Dhanola v/s Vihan K. Shah in which State Consumer Commission, Gujrat State, Ahmedabad has considered the findings recorded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.C.G.C. Ltd. -Vs- Mokul Shriram EPC JV, holding in Para-10 that, the "Suit, Appeal, Second Appeal, are the series of proceedings and the word "Review" is not inclusive in it and therefore State Commission is unquestionably empowered to review any judgment / order passed by it, after enactment of C.P. Act, 2019" and concluded that, the present review application filed U./5. 50 of the C.P. Act, 2019, is "undoubtedly maintainable” before this Commission.

7. We have carefully gone through both the cited Judgements. However, as the said Judgement in Dilip K.Dhanola (Supra) has been delivered by the State Commission, Gujrat State, Ahmedabad, it is not binding on this Commission. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ECGC Ltd. (Supra) has been carefully and thoughtfully perused the ratio laid down in the case is not applicable to the present case in hand. It had decided mandatory provision of deposition of 50% amount for filing the appeal. Not relevant for deciding this Review application.

8. We have carefully gone through the Judgement of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 541 The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that District Forums and State Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do not have the power to recall, review, or set aside their own ex-parte or dismissal-for-default orders, because such powers are not expressly conferred by the statute. The Court observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a statute, creat