ORDER

1.      This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 26.10.2016 in First Appeal No. 1149 of 2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 13.02.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi (in short, the ‘District Forum’). It also challenges Modification Order dated 13.09.2013 in CC no.333 and 338 of 2013 passed in Execution Application filed by the respondent.

2.      The facts, in brief, according to the revision petitioner, are that the respondent/complainant had applied for membership of the  holiday scheme of the petitioner/opposite party on 26.12.2004 and opted for the apartment type “Red Studio Apartment” category and submitted application form based on payment plan of 10% down payment with balance in 12 EMIs (total Rs 1,69,500/-). Membership certificate was issued on 12.01.2005 (Membership No. 40570) which mentioned the Apartment Type as “One Bed Room”. According to the petitioner, this was an inadvertent mistake as is evident from the fact that the membership rate for Red One Bed Room Apartment was Rs 2,23,500/-. The respondent/complainant made 6 EMI payments (Rs 93,228/- apart from the down payment of Rs 16,950/- (total Rs 76,278/-) but thereafter failed to pay the balance despite notices, all of which mentioned allotment type to be “Red Studio Apartment”. In March 2005, respondent/complainant raised the issue of the complimentary gift promised while booking which had not been provided. The petitioner offered adjustment of Rs 20,000/- and respondent undertook to pay the balance Rs 56,272/-.

3.      Consumer complaint no. 133 of 2010 was filed before the District Forum by the respondent seeking restoration of original membership for Red One Bed Room Apartment and Rs 60,000/- spent on holidays along with Rs 1.07,500/-towards compensation and litigation costs. On 23.11.2012 the District Forum allowed the complaint on contest considering the settlement terms offered by the petitioner/opposite party incorporating reinstatement of Red Studio membership prospectively for 25 years along with complimentary stay in White and Blue seasons, food voucher for Rs 8,000/- and interest @ 9% on Rs 93,228/- from date of deposit to date of restoration of membership and compensation of Rs 30,000/-. After reinstatement of membership and repayment of Rs.93,228/- by the petitioner/opposite party as per this order, the District Forum, without notice, issued a Modification Order date 13.02.2013 allowing modification of the order of the District Forum and amended the order dated 23.11.2012 changing the apartment type to “One Bed Room Accommodation.”

4.      The modification/corrigendum dated 13.02.2013 is alleged to be an order which was not in the scope and power of the District Forum and in clear violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LDA Vs. Shyam Kapoor, (2013) 2 SCC 754 dated 05.02.2013. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541 and Jyotsna Arvind Kumar Shah Vs. Bombay Hospital Trust, (1999) 4 SCC 325 that District Forum had no right to review its own orders.

5.      Respondent/complainant filed an execution petition in Execution Case No. 333 of 2013 before the District Forum seeking compliance of orders dated 23.11.2012. On 18.04.2013 Execution Case No. 338/2013 was filed by respondent seeking compliance of modified/corrigendum order dated 13.09.2013. Petitioner/opposite party also filed First Appeal No. 1149/2013 before the State Commission against order dated 13.02.2013 and order dated 13.09.2013 in Execution Application Nos. 333/2013 and 338/2013. The FA was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2016 holding that the main order dated 23.11.2012 in CC No. 133/2010 was not challenged, that order dated 13.02.2013 was