This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.07.2017 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Appeal no. A/15/683. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a car from respondent nos.3 and 4 manufactured by respondent nos.1 and 2 in the year 2009. The car started giving trouble from the very beginning and ultimately the petitioner filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum which was allowed in favour of the complainant on 31.10.2009. All the respondents preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Vide order dated 21.09.2010 the State Commission remanded the matter to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh. 3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint in default on 21.06.2012. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the same before the District Forum. The same was allowed vide order dated 30.08.2012. After restoration, evidence was adduced before the District Forum and it allowed the complaint on 30.03.2015. The opposite party no. 1 TATA Motors went in appeal before the State Commission on the ground that the District Forum did not have the power to restore the complaint which was dismissed. The District Forum and the State Commission have no power to review their own orders. The State Commission accepted the argument and allowed the appeal vide its impugned order dated 14.07.2017 and the complaint was also dismissed. 4. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that for three years the opposite party did not raise any objection in respect of the order passed by the District Form restoring the complaint claiming lack of jurisdiction to restore the complaint which was dismissed by the District Forum. 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that the District Forum does not have the powers to review its own orders and therefore, the order restoring the complaint was patently illegal. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and examined the record. Clearly, District Forum did not have the authority to review its own order as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 667, as under: “34. On a careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and the power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the statute cannot be exercised. 35. The legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex parte orders. Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court. The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers. We have carefully ascertained the legislative intention and interpreted the law accordingly.” 8. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the State Commission, as the State Commission has rightly allowed the appeal on the ground that the District Forum does not have the power to review its own order and the same has been rightly set aside. However, it is not clear on what ground the complaint has also been dismissed by the State Commission. Be that as it may, the order of the District Forum for restoration of the complaint which was dismissed in default was patently wrong, therefore, the complaint needs to be adjudicated again by the District Forum. In this regard the order of the District Forum dated 21.06.2012 dismissing the complaint in default is also set aside. In the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the District Forum. The District Forum shall proceed with this case and shall accept the evidence that was filed even after restoration of the complaint before the District Forum to save time in the matter. It is also directed that the District Forum shall conclude this complaint within a period of two months as the matter is only to be heard on merit as evidence and other pleadings are already complete in the matter. 9. Parties to appear before the District Forum on 30th May 2019. | 
