(Delivered on 12/10/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         Applicant No. 1- Devshankar Khanna and applicant No. 2- Mrs. Madhuri Devshankar Khanna/ Original complainants have preferred  the present  Miscellaneous  Application  for grant  of differential  amount of Rs. 1,54,169/- which was not granted by the State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/16/128.

2.         Applicants  have contended that  they were  original complainants in complaint  case No. CC/16/128 which  was filed  against the non applicant /O.P. namely  Sahara Prime City Ltd. Applicants  have contended that  they had paid the  entire  consideration  amount  to the  non applicant  along with  service tax and other  expenses but despite  payment of consideration  no construction was carried  out of the unit purchased and  so the consumer complaint  had come to be filed. Applicants have  contended that  they had  applied for refund  of  entire consideration  amount and  the consumer  complaint filed  by them  were  disposed  of by the State Consumer Commission, Circuit  Bench, Nagpur by common order passed on 26/02/2019.  Applicants  have taken  a plea that they were  awarded refund  of Rs. 26,96,400/- only  but the  other amounts  mentioned in the  complaint  in the last column of the table were  ignored  and  were not paid . According to the applicants  they were  granted  refund of Rs. 26,96,400/- whereas  they were  entitled  for sum of Rs. 28,50,569/- and so there was  a difference of amount of Rs. 1,54,169/-. Along with  application  the present applicants  have also  placed  on record one copy of common order which was passed  by the State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur on 26/02/2019 wherein  the case of the present  applicants  was  considered  along with nine other  complaints   which were  disposed  of by  the common order  by  bench  comprising   Hon’ble  Mr. B.A. Shaikh, as Presiding  Member and Mrs. J.D. Yengal, as Member.

3.         After  filing of the  application  notice of the same  was served on the  non applicants and  they have  opposed  the application  with  the sole contention  that  the application  filed by the applicants  is not maintainable  in law.

4.         I have heard learned advocate Mr. Sangolkar for the applicants. Admittedly, the present applicant Nos. 1&2 were the original  complainants along with  9 other  complainants  whose  complaints had come to be allowed by  common order  by  my learned predecessor  on 26/02/2019.

5.         In short the applicants  have raised  a  ground  that  the certain amounts which were  claimed  by the present applicants  were not considered  while passing the common order dated 26/02/2019 by my  learned  predecessors. In my humble  opinion  in case  the present  applicants were   aggrieved  by the common   order dated 26/02/2019 passed by my  learned  predecessors  then it was  open  to the present  applicants  to prefer the appeal against  the same before  the higher Forum but  instead  of preferring   any appeal  or challenging the common order dated 26/02/2019 the present applicants  have moved this Miscellaneous  Application   before me. It is pertinent to note that the applicants has not mentioned   under what provision they have moved the present application for grant of differential   amount. Needless to mention  the  provision under old  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not  provide for any review of the order passed  and once the common order has  come to be passed on 26/02/2019, the succeeding  bench had no jurisdiction  to  deal with  the same.  As such the application filed by the applicant Nos. 1&2 itself is not maintainable   in law. Application therefore stands dismissed.