AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
For reasons cited in the Office Report, the delay in filing the Review Application is condoned.
By this Application, purportedly under Section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the "Act"), the Applicant/Respondent prays for review of the order dated 29.4.2016 in R.P. No. 1199 of 2006, passed by this Commission.
By the said order, the Revision Petition was allowed and the order of the State Commission was set aside confirming the order of the State Commission.
The Review of the order is sought on the ground that; (i) Smt. Shobha, Non-Applicant/Petitioner has already received the refund of the amount deposited by her; case was filed after expiry of two years and had no locus-standi to file a Revision Petition; Applicant/Respondent has not received copy of the Revision Petition with documents to enable him to file his reply; Non-Applicant was directed to disclose the relevant facts by way of pleadings, which the Non-Applicant failed to do so.
It is observed that reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent in the Revision Petition and the order was passed only after hearing both sides at length and keeping in view the evidence on record.
In the garb of this Review Application, the Applicant is making an effort to re-argue the matter which is outside the scope of Section 22(2) of the Act.
None of the grounds on which the review is sought, fall within the ambit of Section 22(2) of the Act, and I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the order dated 29.4.2016. The Review Application is dismissed accordingly.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Applicant.