AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of present review application, M/s. Ess Dee Nutek Infinities (P) Ltd. has sought review of order dated 20.08.2019 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No.3730 of 2010.
Section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:
" Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face of record."
From the contents of Section 22(2), it is clear that review is limited only to the error apparent on the face of record.
I have gone through the review application and I find that the review has been filed on the following main grounds:-
(i) Certain documents have been altered, doctored, replaced by the respondents/complainants on the file of this Commission and therefore, the judgment is based on the pleadings, which are forged and fabricated.
(ii) The Commission has not appreciated that the respondents were not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the machine was purchased for commercial purpose. In this regard, reliance placed by this Commission on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramount Digital Color Lab & Ors. etc., Vs. Afga India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. etc. III (2018) CPJ 12 (SC) is not correct.
(iii) The installation report has been altered and job cards have also been concocted.
This Commission has already considered the issue of respondents being a consumer in detail and has given a clear finding on the issue, therefore, this issue cannot be raised in the review.
So far as the issue of concocted document or altered or doctored or forged documents is concerned, the applicant was duly represented during the arguments and the matter was argued on the basis of the documents available on the case file. This issue should have been raised at that time. However, the same was not raised. The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant in respect of installation report is clearly recorded in the judgment that he has argued that the installation report has been signed by the respondents/complainants and this issue has been taken into consideration. As the review is limited only to the error apparent on the face of record, it is seen that the review applicant has not indicated whether any portion of the judgment is affected by the alleged forged or doctored or altered documents. The applicant has not indicated if any portion or sentence of the judgment is against the record available on the case file or whether any portion or line is based on the alleged forced, fabricated, altered or doctored documents. Clearly, no new issues can be taken up under the garb of review and similarly if an issue has already been decided, the same can also not be raised in the review application as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 337 , that "Mere disagreement with view of the judgment cannot be ground for invoking review jurisdiction- as long as the point is already dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under review jurisdiction-"
On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the review application and after going through the record, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record, which calls for review of order dated 20.08.2019 passed by this Commission. Accordingly, application for review stands dismissed.
IA No.17706 of 2019 has also been filed by the review applicant stating that they have filed a complaint indicating that there has been forgery, alterations etc. in the case file by the respondents/complainants addressed to the Hon'ble President NCDRC. However, it has been alleged that the same was not put up by the Registrar's Office to the Hon'ble President NCDRC and therefore, it has been prayed that the review application may be postponed sine die till the decision of the Hon'ble President NCDRC. Once a review application has been filed, it is the duty of the Registrar Office to put it up for orders in the chamber of the concerned Presiding Member/Member for disposal. It is seen that no facts are given in the IA about the complaint. The grounds taken up in the review application have been properly dealt in the above order passed in the review application. The review application thus cannot be postponed for sine die. Accordingly, IA No.17706 of 2019 is dismissed.
Another IA No.17740 of 2019 has been filed by the review applicant with the request that the matter may be heard in the open court rather than decision being taken in the chamber. As no error apparent on the face of the record has been found, there is no need to again hear the matter in the open court and accordingly prayer made in this regard is rejected.