CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2007) 10 NCDRC CK 0046

UTTARANCHAL POWER CORPN. LTD. vs GOSWAMI KHARIA FACTORY

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 4 October 2007 · Citation: 2007 4 CPJ 338

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S.Gupta , P.D.Shenoy J.
RESULT
Application dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 321 words
1.

RESPONDENT No. 1 in revision petition has filed this application for recall of the order dated 4.9.2006 which is being contested by the petitioner.

2.

BY said order dated 4.9.2006, revision filed by the petitioner/non-applicant against the order dated 8.9.2004 of State Commission was allowed and complaint dismissed. Dissatisfied with this order, the respondent No. 1/applicant filed SLP (Civil) No. 17565 of 2006, M/s. Goswami Kharia Factory v. Uttaranchal Power Corpn. & Anr. Copy of the order dated 10.11.2006 passed in the SLP would show that after some argument, the Counsel was permitted to withdraw the petition as he wanted to file review application before this Commission and accordingly the SLP was disposed of. Present application has thereafter been filed. Submission advanced by Mr. K.P.S. Rao for the applicant is that in the SLP the applicant had filed application for permission to file certain additional documents. Those additional documents are to be taken into consideration in deciding the present application as also the revision. Copies of the application seeking permission to file additional documents together with additional documents is at pages 107 to 110 on the paper book. Power of review conferred on this Commission by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being material, is reproduced below: "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."

In our view, additional documents filed in SLP which were neither before this Commission or any of the two Fora below cannot be made the basis for reviewing the order dated 4.9.2006. Order as it stands does not have any error apparent calling for its recall under Sub-section (2) of said Section 22.

3.

APPLICATION is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit leaving the parties to bear their own costs. APPLICATION dismissed.