Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/15/2024

SUNDARI MEHTAB KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S OMAXE CHANDIGARH EXTENSION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2024

ORDER

 

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Addl. Bench]

==========

Review Application No. in Exe.App.No.74 of 2023	:	RA/15/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	23/09/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	06/11/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Sundari Mehtab Kaur & Anr.

…. Non-Applicant/Decree Holder

 

 

V E R S U S

 

 

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extn.

Developers  Pvt.  Ltd. & Anr. 

 

…… Applicants/Judgment Debtors

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for the Applicants/Judgment Debtors.

 

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.         The Applicant/Judgment Debtors have filed a misc. application bearing no. MA/858/2024 for condoning the delay of 76 days in filing the review application.

 

2.         In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, Civil Appeal No.8183-8184 of 2013 decided 13.09.2013, it has been held that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. Further in another judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.,  Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 decided on 07.04.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Para 18 of the judgment, inter alia, that “…. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer's claim. That being so, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the National Commission was quite right in rejecting the contention of National Insurance in this regard.”

 

3.         For the reasons stated in the application and in view of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the Applicants/ Judgment Debtors have been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring the review application within the stipulated period. 

 

4.         In this view of the matter, the misc. application aforesaid stands allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned.

 

5.         Accordingly, misc. application bearing no. MA/858/2024 stands disposed of.
6.         The instant review application has been filed by the Applicants/Judgment Debtors – M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘the Act’) seeking review of orders dated 06.06.2024 whereby this Commission has dismissed the objections filed by the Judgment Debtors as well as against order dated 22.08.2024 vide which this Commission has directed Tehsildar, Mohali to attach office of the Applicants/ Judgment Debtors situated at India Trade Tower, Chandigarh – Siswan Road, Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and to submit compliance report.   

 

7.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicants/Judgment Debtors and have also gone through the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection with his able assistance.

 

8.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant review application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

9.         Learned Counsel for the Applicants/Judgment Debtors argued with vehemence that partial completion certificate dated 10^th July 2015 has to be considered as completion certificate for all intends and purposes as defined under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and even the legislation recognizes the phase wise development and issuance of completion certificate in part. Moreover, said certificate was granted by the competent authority on the basis of the inspection done by the concerned government authorities regarding completion of all basic amenities. Learned Counsel  further argued that this Commission has erroneously refused to consider partial completion certificate as valid certificate for the purpose of offering possession and dismissed the objections filed by the Applicants/ Judgment Debtors vide order dated 06.06.2024 and thereafter, vide order dated 22.08.2024 had directed the Tehsildar, Mohali to attach office of the Judgment Debtors situated at India Trade Tower, Chandigarh – Siswan Road, Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and to submit the compliance report. It has been stoutly urged that since the very basis of passing order dated 22.08.2024 is misunderstanding of the term completion certificate, as defined under the 2016 Act, therefore, the afore mentioned order requires interference from this Commission and needs to be set-right.   

 

10.         The pointers agitated herein for reviewing the order, however, lacks merit and does not hold much water in as much as, the scope of review by this Court is very limited. It is settled that the review would be permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason is made out. We are equally aware of the fact that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The review of the order would be permissible only if a material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. We are also aware that such an error should be an error apparent on the face of the record and should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

 

11.         Needless to mention here that the issues raised now by means of present review application have already been dealt with in detail by this Commission in orders under review. It may 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: -

 

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."

 

12.         In the light of aforesaid provision, the prayer of the Applicants/Judgment Debtors to review order dated 06.06.2024 and 22.08.2024 is misconstrued and misapplied inasmuch as Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers this Commission to review its order only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and we do not find any such apparent error on record. Therefore, this review application does not merit consideration.

 

13.         It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.  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.    

 

14.         From the above observation of Hon'ble Apex Courts, 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.  Besides this, 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”.

 

15.         Whatever observed by this Commission in the orders dated 06.06.2024 and 22.08.2024 is based upon the factual position on record. There is no any apparent error on record and there is no need to review same.

 

16.         For the reasons recorded above, this review application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

17.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

18.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

06^th Nov. 2024                                                           

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER