Chandigarh

StateCommission

MA/495/2024

LALLY MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANU GARG - Opp.Party(s)

GURSHER SINGH BHANDAL

27 Sep 2024

ORDER

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.T., Chandigarh

 

MA/495/2024 alongwith RA/12/2024

In

A/306/2023

 

Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Anu Garg & anr.

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for the applicant/appellant/opposite party No.2 – Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Husband of the non-applicant/respondent No.1/ complainant – on VC.

Sh. Ashish Chauhan, Advocate for the non-applicant/opposite party No.1 - Honda Cars India Limited – on VC.

 

Dated:   27/09/2024

 

PER  SH. RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ORDER

                   This application has been filed by the applicant/appellant– Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. for releasing the statutory amount, which was deposited by it with this Commission at the time of filing appeal bearing No.306 of 2023.

2]                It may be stated here that without filing reply to this application, the non-applicant/respondent No.1/complainant, filed a Review Application bearing No.12 of 2024 seeking review of his entire case. For disposal of the review application, it is apposite to state brief background of the matter. Initially a consumer complaint was filed by the non-applicant/complainant before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), which was partly allowed vide order dated 12.09.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order of Ld. District Commission, both opposite party No.1 – Honda Cars India Limited and opposite party No.2 – Lally Motors Private Limited preferred separate appeals bearing No.305 of 2023 and 306 of 2023 respectively before this Commission. The said appeals were allowed by this Commission vide common order dated 15.04.2024 and the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 of Ld. District Commission below was set aside and consumer complaint No.688 of 2022 was dismissed. Consequent to acceptance of the appeals, the applicant-appellant/opposite party No.1 has filed the instant application for release of the statutory amount deposited by it at the time of filing the said appeal.

3]                It may be stated here that seeking a review under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not an entitlement or a matter of right for the aggrieved party. The scope of such a review is narrowly defined and highly restricted. It is confined to situations where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The review process is not intended for re-evaluating the case or reconsidering the evidence already presented. Instead, it is meant to address instances where a glaring mistake or oversight has occurred that is evident without delving deeply into the case's merits. Therefore, the scope of review is extremely limited and grounds for review are to be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they fall within the narrow parameters set by the law. However, in the instant review application, the non-applicant/complainant is attempting to seek a review on the merits by revisiting and re-examining the documentary evidence and the record of the case, which is not permissible under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which provides a very limited scope for review, strictly confined to identifying and correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record. As already stated above, this provision does not allow for a reassessment of the case's substantive aspects or a re-evaluation of the evidence already considered by the adjudicating authority. By attempting to delve back into the documentary evidence and records, the non-applicant/complainant is essentially seeking to reopen the cases on its merits, which go beyond the narrow and specific grounds for review. Such an attempt to reargue the case on merits under the guise of a review is not permissible within the legal framework established by Consumer Protection Act 2019. We would also like to state that the scope of review under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, being strictly limited, has been consistently upheld by judicial authorities. In Lilly Thomas v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute views. The Hon’ble Apex Court further in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in 2013 (4) CTC 882 has held that the review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. From the above observation of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the power of review cannot be equated with the power of appeal as the scope of review is very limited. Per record, we do not find any error apparent on record and there is no need to review our order dated 15.04.2024 allowing the appeals of the opposite parties. As such, the review application No.12 of 2024 filed by the non-applicant/respondent No.1/complainant is dismissed.

4]                Coming to the present miscellaneous application bearing No.495 of 2024 filed by the applicant/appellant– Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd., it may be stated here that since the non-applicant/respondent No.1/complainant has failed to place on record of higher Court/Commission impugning/setting aside our order dated 15.04.2024, therefore, there is no legal impediment in releasing the statutory amount deposited by the applicant/appellant – Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. alongwith interest if any accrued thereupon. In its application, the applicant/appellant – Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. has stated that the amount of statutory deposit alongwith interest be released in favour of opposite party No.2 – Honda Cars India Limited. The application has been supported by duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar, Senior Sales Consultant of M/s Lally Motors Private Limited. As per office report, in this case, an amount of Rs.5,86,926/- is lying deposited with this Commission in the shape of Fixed Deposit Receipt, which the applicant/appellant/opposite party No.2 had deposited at the time of filing the appeal.

5]                Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.495 of 2024 stands accepted. Accordingly, the Secretary of this Commission is directed to liquidate the aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipt and release the deposited amount of Rs.5,86,926/-, alongwith interest, if any, accrued thereupon, in favour of opposite party No.1 i.e. Honda Cars India Limited, (as prayed for in the application) through RTGS, forthwith, on furnishing its Bank Account details by the applicant/appellant/opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2.

6]                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

7]                Copy of this order be also sent to the parties/Counsel through email/whatsapp forthwith.

8]                File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

27.09.2024

                                               

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad