Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/7/2023

SANCHITA CHAUHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

05 Oct 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Review Application No. In CC/87/2022	:	7 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	23.08.2023
Date of Decision	:	05.10.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sanchita Chauhan daughter of Late Shamsher Singh Chauhan resident of House No.126A, Sector-6, Panchkula.

….Applicant/Complainant.

Versus

1]  M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector-17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

2]  Tarninder Singh, Managing Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector-17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

3]  Narinderbir Singh, Managing Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector-17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

….Non-Applicants/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY :-       

 

Smt. Sanchita Chauhan, applicant/complainant in person.  

Sh. Simranjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the non-applicants/opposite parties.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   This Review application has been filed by the applicant/complainant under the provisions of Section 50 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking review of order dated 21.07.2023 vide which complaint no.87 of 2022 has been partly accepted in the following manner:-

“22]                  For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs and the opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

1.      To deliver actual physical possession of the originally allotted plot of the same size & dimensions and at same location as per original layout plan (Annexure C-15), irrespective of its number 1141  or 1141A, to the complainant, in the project in question, complete in all respects, after obtaining completion certificate from the competent Authority, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of EDC, IDC, PLC and Govt. levies etc. and also balance basic sale price @Rs.18,500/- per square yard only, if any. 
2.      To pay to the complainant, interest @9% p.a. on the entire amount deposited, starting from 29.08.2014 till 31.07.2023, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the complainant.

(iii)     To pay to the complainant, interest @9% p.a. on the amounts deposited, w.e.f. 01.08.2023 onwards (per month), by the 10^th of the following month till actual delivery of physical possession of the unit, complete in all respects. 

(iv)     To pay to the complainant, compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing her mental agony and harassment and also for deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.”

2]                It may be stated here that the applicant/complainant is seeking correction of typographical error, which crept in, while mentioning the plot number in Para 19 and Para 22 (i) of order dated 21.07.2023. In Para 19, in first line, the plot number has been mentioned as “plot No.1141 to 1141A” and in Para 22 (i), fourth line, it is mentioned as “1141 or 1141A”. However, per record of complaint, plot bearing No.1411 measuring 300 Sq. Yards (approx.) was allotted to the complainant and in the relief clause, she had sought direction to the opposite parties to allot and hand over actual physical possession of plot measuring about 295 sq yards (adjacent to plot No.1410).

3]                After hearing the applicant/complainant and the counsel for the non-applicants/opposite parties and going through order under review and the record, we are of the considered view that it being an error apparent on record requires rectification. Therefore, the typographical error qua plot number crept in Para 19 and Para 22 (i) of order dated 21.07.2023, should be corrected as “plot No.1411 to 1411A” and “1411 or 1411A” respectively. It may also be stated here that each Consumer Commission has been empowered to review its own order under the provisions of Sections 40, 50 and 60 of the Act. The power under the Statute is highly limited as compared to the powers of civil court to review its own orders under the provisions of Section 114 read with order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is beneficial to refer following provisions of law:

(A) Section 50 of the Act:"The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order."

(B) Order 47 Rule (1) of the CPC, 1908:

"(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."

Thus, the scope of review under the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is highly limited and only to the extent of “an error apparent on the face of record”.

4]                 As such, the review application is accepted. The typographical mistakes with regard to plot numbers, occurred in Para 19, in first line and in Para 22 (i), fourth line, of order dated 21.07.2023 passed by this Commission in complaint no.87 of 2022, stands corrected to read as “plot No.1411 to 1411A” and “1411 or 1411A” respectively. Reader is directed to make necessary correction in Paras 19 & 21(i) of order dated 21.07.2023 accordingly.

5]                Corrected copy of order dated 21.07.2023 alongwith copy of this order be sent to the parties and to the respective counsels free of charge.

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

Pronounced.

05.10.2023.

Sd/-  [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

Sd/- [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad