##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/CB2/27/RA/4/2025 IN

SC/CB2/27/A/21/132 WITH

SC/CB2/27/IA/185/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

KAMAL SARADA PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. 18A, MOHITE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MOUZA,

WANADONGARI,MIDC,TH. HINGANA DIST. NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

WEBTECH ENGINEERING PVT LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PLOT O 20, SECTOR 25, FARIDABAD, HARYANA, INDIA 121004,MAHARASHTRA.

WEBTECH INTERNATIONAL MACHINERIES PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PLOT NO 9,2, FIRST

FLOOR,40 FEET ROAD, SANJAY COLONY, FARIDABAD, HARYANA, INDIA

121004,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: 30/03/2026

ORDER

(Delivered on 30/03/2026)

Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. The present Review Application is filed along with the application for condonation of delay of 153 days by the applicant/original Complainant namely Shri Kamal Sarada under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. (For the sake

of brevity "The Act")

2. Appeal under section 15 bearing No. A/21/132 (in CC/21/2019) was dismissed by this Commission by order dated 28/02/2025.

3. 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 is filed

undersection 12 of Old Act of C.P.A. 1986.)

4. 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.

5. The only question involved in this case is whether the provision of Review under section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is attracted in case of the order passed by the State Commission after coming into the force of said Act on

24/07/2020 is attracted in this case or not.

6. 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, creating tribunals which derive only such powers as are expressly given to them by that Act and by rules thereunder. Powers not expressly

granted (especially substantive powers like review/recall) cannot be implied.

7. The 2002 Amendment to the Act introduced Section 22-A, which gives the National Commission the power to review or recall its own ex-parte orders. But this amendment does not extend similar power to the District Forums or State

Commissions.

8. We are of the considered view that when power of Review has not implicitly given under the old Act of 1986, it cannot be invoked under the New Act of 2019.

We relied on the ratio laid down in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak (Supra).

9. In view of the above settled position of law, the present Review Application is not maintainable. Hence we pass the following order-

//ORDER//

i. Review Application stands rejected as not maintainable.

ii. No order as to cost.

..................J

KALYANI KAPSE

PRESIDING MEMBER

..................J

SHAILA D. WANDHARE

MEMBER