1.       This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection  Act, 2019 in challenge to the impugned Order dated 10.02.2023 of the State Commission in Appeal No. 32 of 2022 arising out of the Order dated 02.03.2022 of the District Commission in Complaint No. 173 of 2019.

2.      The instant Revision Petition has been filed with reported delay of 85 days.

However, in the interest of justice, inter alia having regard to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay and in order to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the Petition is condoned.

3.       The present Revision Petition has been filed against concurrent findings recorded by the two fora below. The relevant extract from the District Commission’s Order dated 02.03.2022 may be quoted herein below:

The complainant has instituted the present complaint on 01.08.2019 on the same cause of action on which a previous complaint bearing no. CC 07/2013 was filed. The previous complaint came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.08.2017.

For reasons best known to the Complainant, the complainant is the present complaint i.e. CC No. 173/2019 has filed an application for restoration of the CC bearing n. 07/2013 along with another application under section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing application  for restoration. It is to be noted that the present complaint is filed about two years after the dismissal of the previous complaint (CC no. 07/2013) and the application for restoration is moved after about 4.5 years after dismissal of the previous complaint.

It further went to observe as follows:

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mater of New India Assurance Co. Ltd, while holding the consumer courts have the power to entertain the subsequent complaint if the previous complaint has been dismissed in default and restoration application is also rejected, has cautioned against the abuse of  the provision of restoration. The relevant extract of the SC judgment is reproduced hereinblow. 

We cannot also lose sight of the fact that a complainant may harass a party by repeatedly filing the complaint against him. He may file a complaint, draw the opposite party to the State or National Commission and then have the complaint dismissed for default. He may repeat the exercise again only to harass  the defendant. This practice, or to put it a little sternly, these tactics would be intolerable for any authority under the Act. In such a situation, the District Forum or the State or National Commission would not be helpless and it would be open to them to dismiss the fresh complaint on the ground of abuse of the process available under the Act. They can, in that situation, legitimately invoke the principles of Order 9, Rule 9, C.P. C.   

4.       Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Appeal was filed in the State Commission and on finding no merit in the appeal and concurred with the view taken by the District Commission, the same was dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 10.02.2023. The relevant extracts from the State Commission’s Order which succinctly captured the relevant aspects may be quoted herein below:

6. On perusal of record, we find that initially a complaint was filed against the Respondent / Opposite Party before the District Commission which was admitted / registered vide CC No. 07/2013 on 15.01.2013. Thereafter, the Appellant/Complainant failed to file her Evidence despite various opportunities dated 21.12.2016, 12.04.2017 and 09.08.2017 moreover, failed to appear before the Commission on the said dates. It is clear from the record that the Appellant / Complainant have not acted diligently or remained inactive due to which the Complaint was rightly dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2017, for non-prosecution by the District Commission.

7. More so, it is noted that after the passage of 2 years from the dismissal of her first complaint, the Appellant/Complainant filed fresh complaint before the District Commission on 01.08.2019, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2022.

8. The Appellant/Complainant has failed to show any sufficient cause for preferring the said complaint after 2 years from dismissal of her first complaint, which shows that the Appellant / Complainant acted in an unmindful manner and  was abusing the process of law by filing another complaint on same cause of action.

9. In view of the forgoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi-110016.

5.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the District Commission  and the impugned Order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the State Commission as well as the memo of Petition.

6.       Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show this Bench anything on the basis of which it may be held that the impugned Order suffers with any material irregularity at all. The learned counsel has also failed to show any such element of perversity which may be said to have vitiated the impugned Order. On specific query as to how the impugned Order may be said to have been passed beyond the jurisdiction or as to how can any kind of jurisdiction error may be pointed out in the same, learned counsel has not been able to satisfy the Bench at all. The reasoning adopted by the two fora below cannot be faulted with. The relevant law has also been considered and this Bench does not see any good reason to take a different view of the matter. There is no good reason to reopen the factual aspects of the case de novo afresh. No jurisdictional error is perceptible in the impugned Order.

7.       The Bench while sitting in a revisional jurisdiction has its own ambit and scope to operate and as is the settled law unless there is some jurisdictional error committed by the fora below by way of either exceeding the jurisdiction or by way of abstaining from its exercise, the Bench should be loath to interfere into the factual findings arrived at and concurred by the two fora below consecutively.

8.       The instant Revision Petition being bereft of merit stands dismissed.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.