Harmesh Chandra vs State Of Punjab Through Shruti Singh

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in Execution No. 4/2013 in M.A. No. 2706/2011 in consumer complaint number 53/2004 - Harmesh Chandra versus State of Punjab by which, application for review of the order was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint number 53/2004 before the District Forum against M/s. Sehajpal Finance and Investment Ltd., saying that he had deposited a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- in different FDRs, but the said amount was neither refunded on the due dates nor any interest was paid upon it. The complaint was allowed on 4.10.2004 and the OPs were directed to pay Rs.5,02,000/- being the maturity value of the FDRs, along with future interest @12% p.a. and Rs.5,000/- as costs. The complainant filed execution proceedings before the District Forum. It is borne out that the State Commission vide their order dated 14.01.2013 passed in miscellaneous application number 2706/2011 directed the District Forum to continue with the execution application to execute the order so that the amount awarded to the complainant and others is recovered from the OPs. The petitioner filed another miscellaneous application on 21.02.2013 before the State Commission for review. Vide order dated 08.03.2013, the State Commission concluded that they had no power to review their earlier order dated 14.01.2013 based on a view taken by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in "Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. " [2011 (4) RCR (civil) - 175]. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

THE petitioner was heard in person and the record was examined.

IT is clear from the facts on record that the revision petition has been made against the order of the State Commission passed on 08.03.2013 vide which the review application against the order of the State Commission dated 14.01.2013 was dismissed. The State Commission has rightly quoted the order passed by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in "Hitendra Pathak & Ors. (supra) ", that the State Commission and District Forum are not competent to review their own orders under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission has, therefore, not committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order. The State Commission has also held that vide their order dated 14.01.2013, the District Forum has been directed to continue with the execution proceedings to execute the order so that the amount awarded can be recovered from the OP. We do not find any justification to interfere with such order and hence, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.