Tribunals and Commissions(2000) 10 NCDRC CK 0053

VIPIN SRIVASTAVA vs GENERAL POST OFFICE, LUCKNOW

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 3 October 2000 · Citation: 2001 2 CPJ 79

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.C.Bhargava , D.D.Bahuguna J.
RESULT
Review 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

3 paragraphs · 217 words
1.

THIS is an application for review of judgment and order dated 1.12.1999 passed by this Commission in Appeal. No. 988/SC of 1997.

2.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist Mr. Vineet Srivastava. Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act no power of review has been conferred on this Commission. The review power can only be exercised when a statute specifically provides for such a power to be exercised by a Court or an Authority. In the present case the Act is silent on this point and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to review has not been made applicable to these proceedings under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The power of review is available in very limited cases in which there is a fault of the Commission or the District Forum or the judgment has been obtained by playing fraud on the Commission. No such contingency is present in the present case. Hence the review cannot be done of the judgment which has already been pronounced in the case. The remedy of the applicant lies elsewhere and it should approach the proper Authority. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties Review application dismissed.