Back
Arpita
RA-2021-50
Page 1 of 6
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.
Review Application No.A/2021/50
[Virtual Hearing]
Court No. 1
Sandhyaben Ghanshyambhai Prajapati
Add : G-402,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/11/2021."
Details
DD
MM
YY
Date of Judgment
08 03
2022 Date of filing
11 11
2021 Duration
27 03
Arpita
RA-2021-50
Page 2 of 6
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/11/2021. 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. 763/2018 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. 11 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 she has not contacted to her advocate. That due to corona
pandemic she was engaged in the treatment to her relatives.
Therefore, she 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-
Arpita
RA-2021-50
Page 3 of 6
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from
